Sitting of 7 July 1948

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

    Royal Silver Wedding (Stamps)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Postmaster-General how many of the £1 Silver Wedding stamps have now been sold to the latest available date.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): Up to 1st June, 1948, some 350,000 had been sold.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether they have been available throughout the Empire and the United States by correspondence if the money has been sent here?
    Mr. Hobson: As far as I know they have been made available to the countries mentioned in the supplementary question.
    Dr. Segal: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the money received has come from dollar sources?
    Mr. Hobson: Not without notice.

    Mail Services, West Indies
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take in order to improve the postal communications between the West Indies and this country in view of the delays of upwards of 10 weeks in some cases, an example of which was brought to his notice recently through the London Postal and Tele-communications Advisory Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce.
    Mr. Hobson: As my right hon. Friend has explained in correspondence with my hon. Friend, there were serious delays to
    344
    air mail for the West Indies earlier in the year, owing to circumstances outside his control, but there has been a marked improvement, and I hope that there will be no further difficulty. Two instances of 10 weeks delay to which my attention has been drawn were not, however, due to irregularities in the operation of the air services, and the letters in question must, I fear, have been mistreated in the post; on that assumption the air mail fees have been refunded to the senders.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that delays are still occurring? Does he realise how inadequate the postal services are to parts of the West Indies? Will he take steps to look into this matter with a view to improving communications as rapidly as possible, because Colonial development cannot take place unless there are good communications?
    Commander Noble: Is every opportunity taken of direct sea mail to the West Indies?
    Mr. Hobson: Every opportunity is taken. The delay at the beginning of the year was due to a certain extent to the grounding of the Tudor aircraft. So far as the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) is concerned, I will look into that matter.

  TELEVISION SERVICE (EXTENSION)
  Mr. John Lewisasked the Postmaster-General when it is anticipated that the Birmingham television station will be in operation; and if he will make a further statement on the likelihood of similar facilities being available in Lancashire in the near future.
  Mr. Hobson: The B.B.C. hope that their television station now being built at Sutton Coldfield near Birmingham, will be working in the Autumn of next year. One of the next stations will be in the North of England. The problems involved in extending the service to that area are being worked out now.
  Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are far behind the Americans in the development of television services, and that if we continue to lag behind our

  345
  export markets for both transmission apparatus and television receivers will very likely be put in jeopardy?
  Mr. Hobson: I am not admitting the implication in the supplementary question that we are behind the United States. The only reason for the restriction on expansion of television services is that the raw materials necessary are required more urgently for other purposes.
  Mr. Tiffany: Could my hon. Friend say when the East Midlands are likely to be covered by the television services?
  Mr. Hobson: If a place is within 50 miles of Sutton Coldfield it will be covered by the station we are at the present moment erecting.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Have any surveys taken place for a likely site in the Lancashire area?
  Mr. Hobson: That is at the present moment being done.
  Mr. Scollan: Is there any chance of Scotland having television?
  Mr. Speaker: This Question deals with England and not Scotland.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (NON-PRIORITY APPLICATIONS)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General if he can given an estimate of the time which is likely to elapse before a non-priority application for a telephone on the Mountview and Tudor telephone exchanges can expect to be fulfilled.
  Mr. Hobson: Provision of additional subscribers' cables and equipment is at present severely restricted to meet the needs of the national export drive, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to forecast when service is likely to be available for non-priority applicants in these areas.
  Mr. Gammans: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give any idea? Is it a matter of months or years or never?
  Mr. Hobson: It is a question entirely of the supply of tele-communication equipment and cable. The position is that we have to make our contribution to the
  346
  export of raw materials. Quite frankly, it is impossible to say when.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the exports of those materials required for the telephone system are going to hard currency or soft currency areas?
  Mr. Hobson: Hard currency areas in some cases.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Explosives (Storage)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that a number of high explosives and other bombs left over from the late war remain at Rackheath Aerodrome in Norfolk; that some of them have been the cause of a recent outbreak of fire and constitute a potential danger to the village; and if he will take steps to have the bombs removed or otherwise suitably dealt with.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The recent fire at Rackheath Aerodrome was caused by a defective smoke bomb; all bombs of this type there have therefore been examined and defective ones are being destroyed. The stores of bombs now at Rackheath will be removed, either for dumping or to be put in permanent stores, as soon as possible, but I am afraid it will take a long time before the airfield is completely cleared. I will, however, examine the possibility of expediting the work at this station.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Air what action is being taken to remove high explosive and incendiary bomb dumps from land which could be used to grow crops and timber; and meanwhile to guard these against fire and theft.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Bombs are being steadily cleared from storage areas that are not needed permanently by the R.A.F.; priority is given to such tasks as the clearance of dangerous areas and the disposal of unserviceable and surplus bombs. Subject to certain safety regulations, agriculture is permitted at all airfields which are used for bomb storage. Strict precautions are taken against fire and theft.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries about certain dumps on non-requisitioned agricultural land which are becoming the homes of a lot of vermin—[Laughter]—I said "a lot of vermin" and not "less than vermin"—and is he aware that a certain number of people are afraid of going out shooting because of these bombs.
    Mr. Henderson: Certainly; if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

    Kirknewton Aerodrome (Flood Damage Claim)
    Lord John Hopeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement with regard to the long-standing claim of Mr. Robert Rennie, Whelp-side, Balerno, for damages sustained through flooding of the claimant's land by water from Kirknewton Aerodrome.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am glad to be able to state that agreement has now been reached with the owner's agent on the amount to be paid in settlement of this claim.
    Lord John Hope: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this has taken a year to do—that there has been a year's delay on the part of his officials, who have not answered letters and not carried out undertakings—and will he see that certain repair work which is part of the Agreement is carried out without delay to avoid further damage?
    Mr. Henderson: I will look into the suggestion in the latter part of the supplementary question with regard to repair work. So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, my information is that the claim was first put into my Department in October of last year.
    Lord John Hope: June.
    Mr. Henderson: If there has been any undue delay, I regret it, but I do not think that there has been.

    Personal Case
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Air why the late 1876436 L.A.C. Gaylon was discharged from the Royal Air Force instead of being
    348
    invalided or treated in the Service, when the medical authorities suspected he was suffering from cancer, the disease from which he has since died.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I have made a careful inquiry into this case and I find that there was no evidence, at the time of his release, that this airman was in fact suffering from cancer. I regret very much that the hon. Gentleman was incorrectly informed, owing to a misunderstanding in my Department, that the Air Ministry medical authorities suspected he had cancer.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that this man's illness first became apparent during his service, that he spent two long periods in hospital, and that he was discharged when it must have been known that he was seriously ill, because he died of cancer a few months afterwards?
    Mr. Henderson: The information that has been given to me by my medical authorities is to the effect that this airman had apparently completely recovered from his operation and was in fact fit and well when he became due for release in May of last year. I am afraid that I can only act upon the evidence that has been supplied to me.
    Sir D. Robertson: While I accept the explanation, the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made is entirely contrary to the contents of a letter which he himself referred to, and which I received.
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I have already expressed my regret to the hon. Gentleman that that letter was incorrectly phrased.
    Dr. Segal: Can my right hon. and learned Friend urge on his medical authorities not to precipitate the invaliding out of the Service of men who may appear to be seriously ill and who may possibly be suffering from cancer?
    Mr. Henderson: I should be very sorry to think that the medical authorities of my Department were in fact doing that. In this particular case, I can only repeat that they have reported to me that in May of last year they were satisfied that the airman, in their opinion, was completely fit.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister get the Government to give fresh consideration to the treatment of men who are suffering from cancer and who are put out of the Service. Will he see that they are either maintained in hospital in the Service, or in hospital when they come out of the Service, and are not thrown out and left to their own resources after they have given service?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that these unfortunate men are just thrown out. If any particular case is drawn to my attention which is contrary to what I believe to be the policy, I will gladly make investigation.
    Sir D. Robertson: Owing to the unsatisfactory state revealed by this Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    New Runway, Prestwick (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how the cost of the new runway at Prestwick compares with the cost of the new runway at Singapore.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The construction of a new runway at Prestwick has been deferred and no close estimate of the cost can be given.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any information about Singapore?
    Mr. Lindgren: Any Question with regard to Singapore should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Mr. Stokes: On a question of fact, if the Parliamentary Secretary says that no estimate of cost can be given, does he mean to say that this thing was contemplated and no estimate was made, and, if an estimate was made, why cannot it be given?
    Mr. Lindgren: The actual site has not been arranged and, until the siting is determined, one cannot give a close estimate.

    Nationalised Undertakings
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how the cost of the administration of Civil Aviation and the losses of nationalised British airways during the last year for which figures are available compare with the average cost of Civil Aviation administration and Civil Aviation subsidies during the period 1929–39.
    Mr. Lindgren: The subsidies and grants in the prewar period rose from £361,000 in 1929–30 to £1,339,000 in 1938–39. The total of the deficiency grant payable in respect of operations in 1946–47 amounted to about £10,320,000. Comparative figures of costs of administration of civil aviation are not available owing to the different scope of the field of Government responsibilities.
    Brigadier Rayner: In view of that answer, would the Parliamentary Secretary kindly impress on his colleagues and on his constituency and mine that we cannot afford any more nationalisation for a very long time?
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a comparison of the aircraft, air ports, air terminals and the general navigational equipment of today with what were in use in the period referred to in the Question?
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what his plans are to ensure that the nationalised air undertakings will become self-supporting in due course; and by what date he estimates that this position will be achieved.
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend's whole policy is directed to ensuring that the three Corporations shall become self-supporting as soon as possible subject only to the requirements of National policy.
    Brigadier Rayner: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his noble Friend to do his best to see that civil aviation becomes self-supporting before Marshall Aid runs out?
    Mr. J. Lewis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to agree that the difficulties of making an air service self-supporting are almost insurmountable in view of the fact that no transport can be maintained

    351
    without goods traffic, and that if the railways did not have goods traffic they would lose a much larger sum of money?

    B.O.A.C. (Aircraft Purchases)
    Mr. Westasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what sum has been spent in the purchase of U.S. aircraft for B.O.A.C.
    Mr. Lindgren: £1,575,000 in Eire and 5,317,435 dollars in the United States of America.
    Mr. Westasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what proposals have been made to purchase Canadian aircraft for use on B.O.A.C. lines; and for what reasons.
    Mr. Lindgren: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) yesterday.

    Air Navigation Directions
    Sir John Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many regulations, orders and directions are in force amending the Air Navigation Directions, 1936 (A.N.D. 13); and why these instruments have not been consolidated by S.I. 1948, No. 1404, which makes further amendments.
    Mr. Lindgren: The answer to the first part of the Question is 13. S.I. 1948, No. 1404 was required for specific purposes. A revised code of regulations to replace the 1936 directions is in course of preparation.

  GERMANY

    War Crimes (Detained Persons)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many alleged War Criminals handed over respectively to the Dutch, Belgian and French authorities remain in prison and are untried in those countries for more than three, two or one years, respectively; whether he will give instructions that no more such persons are to be handed over to any of those Governments until arrears have been wiped off; and whether he will instruct the Commander in Chief in Germany to exercise his right under Control
    352
    Commission Laws and request the return of all such persons who have been held in detention untried for more than six months.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The figures asked for are not available and would take a very long time to obtain. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the Question, while it is not clear that Article 5 of Control Council Law No. 10 has exactly the meaning which my hon. Friend puts on it, the Military Governor is already applying for the return in individual cases of persons who have been held in detention untried for more than six months.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been handed over for trial and nothing has been done about them? The Dutch authorities have declared that they are so busy trying their own Quislings that they cannot be bothered with foreigners. Is he also aware that under the Control Commission instructions, the Commander-in-Chief has power to demand the repatriation of these people to Germany, but has not done so, and thousands of them are languishing in gaol, untried, with no charge made against them?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that I can accept any of those four statements. On the last point, I have explained that the Military Governor is already applying for return in individual cases. The other points are covered in the answer, which, I think, shows our interest and anxiety.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that instructions are being given that all people who have been asked for by foreign Governments are now to have warrants issued for their arrest, and as there are thousands in prison untried, what is the sense of putting more people into prison when those already there have not been tried? Surely that is nonsense?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member is wildly wrong in his information.
    Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment, with great authority.

    Patent Rights
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether German patents are still protected outside Germany; and what notice has been taken of their value when assessing reparations from Germany to other countries.
    Mr. Mayhew: German patent rights in existence abroad on 1st August, 1946, are German external assets to be liquidated in accordance with the terms of the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparation. The London Patents Accord of 27th July, 1946, to which 28 nations are party, placed the majority of these patents in the public domain or made them available for royalty-free licensing, subject to certain exceptions. German inventions made after 31st December, 1945, may be patented in the United Kingdom, United States and France and receive normal protection. Since value is not the criterion for assessing the German reparations debt to other countries, the second part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Stokes: But with great respect, the second part of the Question does arise. Is my hon. Friend not aware that there has been a general stealing of design patents, with no regard paid to the value to the people from whom they have been stolen, just as in the case of the Kalibri works, when tools were taken away and had to be returned because they had been stolen by competitors in this country; and is it not about time that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary paid attention to this matter, which is widespread and causing a great deal of distress?
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, the Kalibri works case has nothing whatsoever to do with this. This Question is about patents.
    Mr. Stokes: But it shows what is going on.

    Coal, Berlin (Air Transport)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much coal is to be flown to Berlin; and what is the estimated cost per ton.
    Mr. Mayhew: Information as to the amount of coal to be flown to Berlin is not available. The cost of flying a ton of coal to Berlin would vary according to the type of aircraft used. If these were R.A.F. Dakotas, the cost per ton would be about £15.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied that this is an economic proposition; and does he not think the overhead charges are rather high?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is certainly expensive, and we should be very happy to send the coal by train.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister assure us that he is not going to send building material in the same way?

    Elections
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Berlin municipal council calling for the holding of free, secret and direct elections for an all German Parliament; and whether he will approach the other three occupation Powers with a view to making preparations for such elections, to be held under joint Four-Power supervision in all four zones of Germany.
    Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government have frequently expressed their opinion that the holding of free elections, although by no means the only, or indeed the first step to be taken, is essential to the solution of the economic and political problem in Germany. His Majesty's Government have on several occasions during the last three years put forward detailed proposals for such a solution, but have failed to secure the necessary Four-Power agreement.
    Mr. Warbey: As the present plan for West German Government has not received the approval of the democratic political parties in Germany and has aroused serious misgiving in France, will the Under-Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to use a suitable opportunity to make a fresh attempt to secure agreement on elections for the whole of Germany?
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot agree with either of those suppositions; nor can I agree that this Question can be treated in isolation from other problems that are facing us.

  SUDAN (ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the forthcoming elections in Sudan, indicating the qualifications of an elector and of a candidate;

  355
  what proportion of the adult population will be entitled to vote; and what is the method of voting.
  Mr. Mayhew: Details as to the qualifications of electors and candidates, methods of voting, etc., are given in the Ordinance which was promulgated and published on 19th June. Generally speaking, male Sudanese of not less than 25 years of age, and with certain residence qualifications, are entitled to vote and stand as candidates, though for local reasons the method of voting differs in different parts of the country. Until the first electoral rolls are completed in the next few weeks it is impossible to give a reliable figure for the proportion of the population qualified to vote.
  Mr. Piratin: But in view of the qualification residence on the part of electors and candidates, is it not the case that a very small proportion of the adult population will be entitled to vote; and if that is the case, will the Minister look into the matter to see that every adult is given the opportunity of voting?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. A very large majority will be entitled to vote. And, what is more, there will be a choice of candidates.
  Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister inform the House, at the earliest opportunity, how many will be able to vote on the basis of these qualifications, and what the proportion will be to the total adult population?
  Mr. Mayhew: If a question is put down I will certainly see about that.

  TRANSJORDAN

    Recognition
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date official recognition was given by His Majesty's Government to the State of Transjordan; and whether any official recognition of this State has been accorded by U.N.O.
    Mr. Mayhew: The date was 22nd March, 1946. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not clear what precisely my hon. Friend has in mind, or what action he is suggesting it would be open to the United Nations to take.
    Dr. Segal: Would it not have been more in accord with correct procedure if His Majesty's Government had handed the Mandate for Transjordan back to the United Nations, as was done in the case of the Palestine Mandate, instead of exposing themselves to the allegation of setting up a puppet State in Transjordan, which has not, as yet, been recognised by any other Power?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend at least say whether what is suggested in that last supplementary question is true—that no other Power in the world except Great Britain has, in fact, recognised the State of Transjordan? Is that so?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is so. Equally, only the veto of the Soviet Union has kept them out of the United Nations.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that Transjordan is in the Mandate as part of Palestine, and that it was quite illegal to hand it over to the Amir Abdullah as an independent State? Is that not the case? Is it not in the Mandate as part of Palestine?
    Mr. Stokes: No.
    Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. I am rather reluctant to raise this point of Order, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that within two minutes the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given weak-kneed, wise-cracking answers which have had no relevance whatsoever to the questions asked, either by myself or by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), could you direct the Under-Secretary to give either reasonable answers or no answers? Then we should know where we stand.
    Mr. Speaker: No, I will not direct the Under-Secretary. He gives the answers as he thinks best. It is not my affair. If the hon. Member is not satisfied he can give notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of Order. Was the Under-Secretary really in Order in using my supplementary question—which was purely a question of fact, and nothing else—in order to make a quite unjustified attack upon another Government?
    Mr. Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is nothing to do with me, and it is not a point of Order.
    Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. In view of the answers of the Under-Secretary, are we to take it that where there are elections of Labour candidates with no opposition of any kind—just the one candidate—those elections are undesirable?
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must have some idea of what is and what is not a point of Order. A point of Order is a point of procedure of this House, and not a point as to whether a Minister has answered satisfactorily or not.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask you, Sir, as a matter of direction whether, after an hon. Member has risen on a supposed point of Order, which you then declare to be not a point of Order, it is not impermissible for another hon. Member to get up and refer to that previous point as a point of Order?
    Mr. Speaker: I quite agree. My trouble is that I am far too kind.

    Seconded British Personnel
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many military officers and other ranks, respectively, are now attached and seconded to the Government of Transjordan; and how many civil servants have been seconded or attached to the service of that Government.
    Mr. Mayhew: Twenty-three British officers and 16 other ranks are seconded from the British Forces for service with the Government of Transjordan. None of them are in Palestine. Four British civilian officials were carried on the Palestine Government pensionable establishment and seconded to the service of the Transjordan Government. This arrangement ceased on the termination of the Mandate on 15th May, and those who are still serving with the Transjordan Government are not seconded from the Service of His Majesty's Government but are purely private individuals.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the declaration of King Abdullah that he intends to fight on until the Jewish State is destroyed, will not the Under-Secretary
    358
    recall these men to serve where they belong, namely, in this country?
    Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I ask whether in the event of deciding to take the action my hon. Friend suggests, he will also make representations to the American Government that they should withdraw their American help to the Jews.

  GREECE (BRITISH FORCES)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the resolutions passed by the annual congress of the Women's Co-operative Guild and by the conference of the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers, copies of which have been sent to him calling for the withdrawal of all British Forces and financial help from Greece; and what reply he has had sent.
  Mr. Mayhew: A protest against the presence of British Forces in Greece was received from the Scottish Co-operative Women's Guild, and a formal acknowledgement of receipt was sent. No resolution has been received from the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers.
  Mr. Piratin: But would not the Under-Secretary answer the second part of the Question.
  Mr. Mayhew: A formal acknowledgment was sent.
  Mr. Piratin: Does the Under-Secretary mean to say that in the case of an organisation of this kind, voicing their opinion on this serious matter, he sends only a formal acknowledgment? Would he accept the formal acknowledgment of the Federation of British Industries?
  Mr. Mayhew: The resolution was purely formal.

  SAUDI ARABIA (BRITISH MILITARY MISSION)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many military officers and other ranks of British nationality are now employed as members of the British Military Mission to Saudi Arabia; and whether, in view of the fact

  359
  that Saudi Arabian troops have now joined the Arab forces within Palestine, it is intended that the British Military Mission shall continue to train Arab troops in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Mayhew: Twelve officers and 33 other ranks are now serving with the British Military Mission in Saudi Arabia. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the presence of Saudi Arabian troops in Palestine, where there is at present a truce, warrants any interruption of the work of this Mission.
  Mr. Warbey: But does my hon. Friend consider that the continuance of military assistance to one of the Arab States, which has forces in Palestine, is consistent with the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend when the truce was arranged?
  Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, might I ask him whether he has any information to give to the House as to the number of American officers who are helping the Jews?
  Mr. Gallacher: Answer the question.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to get an answer?
  Mr. Mayhew: The answer to the hon. Member—
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to rise and put a supplementary question when, as far as I could hear, his name was not called by yourself?
  Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order, I quite successfully caught your eye—
  Mrs. Leah Manning: How do you know?
  Mr. Stokes: Certainly I did. How does the hon. Lady know I did not? With great respect, I submit it has always been the custom of this House that, if a supplementary question is put and another hon. Member wishes to supplement what has been said in that supplementary question, if he can succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he has every right to do so.
  Mrs. Manning: Further to that point of Order. Has it not always been the rule in this House that you, Mr. Speaker, indicate when a Member has caught your
  360
  eye—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]; otherwise we might all be making speeches at the same time?
  Mr. Stokes: That is town council stuff.
  Mr. Speaker: It very often happens when a Member wants to throw in some rather difficult question before the answer is made. It happens time and again on both sides.
  Mr. Mayhew: The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) is "Yes, Sir," and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), "No, Sir."

  BRITISH HONDURAS (CONCESSIONS)
  Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now able to state the extent of the concessions in land area and the nature of the main concessions covering any trading or other rights, and the dates on which these concessions were granted to the Belize Estate and Produce Company in British Honduras; what are the terms and the consideration given for the concessions granted; and what provisions are made for the protection of the interests of local labour and for reafforestation after the timber concessions have been worked.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The Belize Estate and Produce Company hold a freehold title, issued 100 years ago, to about one million acres in British Honduras. The Company also hold a licence to cut ine on a tract of approximately 107,000 acres for a period of eight years from October, 1943. The terms of this licence are the payment of a royalty of 44 cents (2s. 2d.) a tree with a minimum of 1,000 dollars (approximately £250) annually. The interests of local labour are protected by legislation. There is no provision in the licence for reafforestation, which is normally a function of government, but the licensed area is subject to the Colony's forest legislation. A minimum girth limit for mahogany felled on private estates has been imposed by the Government.
  Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend understand that the company mentioned succeeded the British Honduras Company in 1878, which company was stated by

  361
  one Governor to have improper occupancy of that territory, and that one governor was even recalled because of allocating territory indiscriminately in British Honduras? Will he look into the title of this company to see whether or not it is valid in law?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: This company has a freehold title and certainly could not be dispossessed, even if we had a mind to do so, without reasonable and proper compensation.

  NIGERIAN TIN MINES (WAGES)
  Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present average rate of wages paid to labourers in the Nigerian tin mines; and whether he is satisfied that, in view of the present world price of tin, the conditions are satisfactory.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The new minimum rates, varying from 10d. to 1s. 2d. a day, according to locality, with certain emoluments in kind, have not been in force long enough to enable the average wage paid to these labourers to be assessed. My right hon. Friend is consulting the Governor on the second part of the Question and I will communicate with my hon. Friend again.
  Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend keep his eye on the position and let us have some further information if a Question is put down in reasonable time after this has had a trial?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: If a Question is put down, we shall certainly attempt to answer it.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this wage scale was agreed to at a meeting presided over by Government officers as long ago as August, 1947, and was agreed to by both sides, employers and miners in the tin mining industry?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The conditions are laid down in a Nigerian order in council and were based on recommendations of the Advisory Board on which both sides were represented.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: And presided over by representatives of the Government.
  Dr. Segal: Is my hon. Friend aware that housing conditions in the Jos area of Nigeria are among the most unsatisfactory in the whole of the colony, and will he urge this tin mining company to provide proper housing estates to improve the conditions of the miners?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: It is not for me to urge anything on a company. There are regulations laid down by the Nigerian Government, and this company and other companies running similar industries must comply with these conditions. If they are not complied with, it is for the Nigerian Government to ensure that the conditions are complied with.

  SINGAPORE (WAGES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many workers were employed daily on work for His Majesty's Government during the first week in June at Singapore; and what was the average daily wages paid in terms of British money.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware no significant number of workers is employed by His Majesty's Government at Singapore otherwise than under the Service Departments. I suggest that the Question should be addressed to the respective Ministers concerned.
  Mr. Hughes: Has the Under-Secretary no information about the proposal to spend £3 million on runways?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: None whatsoever.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Sugar Industry (Strike)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the terms of reference of the Commission appointed to inquire into conditions in the sugar industry in Trinidad and the Leeward Islands may be extended to include the sugar industry in British Guiana;
    (2) how many sugar estates in British Guiana are still affected by the strike; how many workers are on strike; how many at work on these estates; what are the demands of the strikers; and what are the difficulties in the way of meeting them.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make arrangements for the Commission appointed to inquire into the conditions in the sugar industry in Trinidad and the Leeward Islands to extend its inquiries to the sugar industry in British Guiana.
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has any statement to make about the incident at the Elmore Plantation, British Guiana, on 16th June, when armed police fired on sugar workers who were on strike, killing five and injuring 12;
    (2) whether he will advise the Labour Department in British Guiana to bring about negotiations between the Sugar Producers' Association and the Guiana Industrial Workers Union for the settlement of the strike on seven sugar estates which has now lasted nine weeks, instead of confining the negotiations to unions recognised by the Producers' Association but not commanding the confidence of the workers;
    (3) whether he is aware that, on 7th May, a motion was tabled in the Legislative Council of British Guiana drawing attention to the critical situation in the sugar industry and requesting the appointment of a committee to investigate the dispute in the industry and the working and living conditions on the sugar estates; that no action has been taken on that motion; and that the situation has been allowed to drift into a long strike; and whether he will secure that the Government of the Colony take steps to secure an end of the strikes by redressing the workers' grievances.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gallacher: While I shall carefully scan the statement, will the Under-Secretary guarantee that something will be done immediately in order to ease the conditions of these workers instead of allowing the police to fire upon them and kill them as has been the case arising out of the recent strike? Will he see that everything possible is done to get proper conditions for these workers, because they could not be worse treated and more oppressed?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a question.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Surely, in the case of a serious incident of this kind the Government ought to make a statement to the House which can be discussed? Surely the Under-Secretary ought to answer the Question now?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am perfectly prepared to do so if the House so wishes, but I warn the House that it is a long statement. I could give it at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would it not be for the convenience of the House if the statement were made after Questions?
    Following is the statement:
    I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 23rd June to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd). I regret that there are still seven East Coast sugar estates affected by the strike of cane cutters. These estates comprise 20 per cent. of the sugar-producing area of the Colony and employ a maximum of 7,500 workers, of whom 1,240 are can cutters. There has been spasmodic working throughout the period of the strike and approximately 100 (but no cane cutters) were at work a few days ago. All the other estates in the Colony continue to work normally.
    The strikers demand the abolition of the present system of cutting, loading and weighing cane, and its replacement by the system in force two or three years ago. The old system was changed because it was unsatisfactory both to workers and employers. The new system is reported to be working satisfactorily on other estates at the same rates of pay and under the same conditions. Some strikers have, in fact, accepted on other estates work which they refused under similar conditions on the East Coast. The new system is supported by the recognised unions and the producers are unwilling to go back to the old out-moded system. There is still complete deadlock on this point.
    The Labour Department of British Guiana obtained a written statement of the strikers' grievances from the Guiana Industrial Workers Union—the newly formed union which claims to represent the strikers—and placed it before the

    365
    Sugar Producers Association at the beginning of May. The sugar producers, supported by the recognised trade unions, refused to negotiate with the new union on the grounds that it would undermine the recognised unions, now of some 10 years' standing, and with whom machinery for dealing with all disputes of sugar workers had been established. In view of this it would be difficult for the Labour Department of British Guiana to attempt further negotiations between the Sugar Producers Association and the Guiana Industrial Workers Union. In any case the Government of British Guiana cannot support an organisation which seeks to displace established and recognised trade unions who have the confidence of the large majority of the workers.
    It is the case that on 7th May notice of a motion was given by Mr. Chetti Jagan in the British Guiana Legislative Council, and that the motion has not yet been debated. The motion refers to the present strike, but it goes much beyond that and asks for the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the sugar industry generally. Among other things, the motion proposes that the committee should be asked to consider the desirability of abolishing the present plantation system of cane cultivation and replacing it by a system of co-operative can farming to be accomplished by the acquisition and distribution by Government of estate land to the workers.
    The Commission appointed to inquire into the conditions in the sugar industry in Trinidad and Leeward Islands will be fully occupied with their present terms of reference, and will be unable to extend their investigations to British Guiana. When I have received the report of the local Commission now inquiring into the recent disturbances, however, I will consider, in consultation with the Governor, whether it would be advisable to appoint an independent Commission to investigate conditions in the British Guiana sugar industry.

  CYPRUS (CONSTITUTION)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now accede to the demand to hold a plebiscite in Cyprus so as to ascertain the views of the population on the form of constitution they wish to have.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has not been informed of any general demand for a plebiscite in Cyprus. In any case, I do not consider that any helpful results could be obtained from one in Cyprus.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Will the Minister then seek some other way of finding out the kind of constitution the people of Cyprus want, as they obviously have rejected the one that the Minister has so far given?

  MALTA (RE-HOUSING)
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent re-housing is proceeding in Malta; and on whose authority is the bulk of the available building materials being diverted to the reconstruction of bombed churches.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: This matter is entirely one for the Malta Government, and in view of their constitutional position, I fear it would not be proper for me to answer the Question.

  TOGOLAND (OFFICIAL'S DISMISSAL)
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons for the dismissal from the Education Service of Mr. Gerald Awuma, of Ho, Secretary of the United Nations Association in the British Trust Territory of Togoland; on what grounds he was subsequently arrested; and whether Mr. Awuma has now been released and reinstated.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Mr. Awuma was not in the Education Service of the Gold Coast. He was Secretary of a district education committee, which is not an official appointment. He was dismissed from this post by the unanimous decision of the committee because, in spite of previous warnings and of advice from administrative officers, he was unable to work in harmony with some of the native authorities who are represented on the committee. I understand that Mr. Awuma is at present awaiting trial on a charge arising out of an alleged attempt to deceive a public officer. He is not under arrest.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to go closely into the details of this case and to receive further representations from the World Federation of the United Nations Association?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: This man is not an employee of the Government and I cannot go into the details of his dismissal, because that is not a matter with which we are concerned. On the question of the charge, that is a judicial matter and it would not be right for me to go into it.

  MALAYA

    Rubber and Tin Industries
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the rehabilitation of the rubber and tin industries of Malaya during the past two years; and to what extent delays in supplying the necessary equipment in this connection have been overcome.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Owing largely to the fine efforts of the planters and small-holders in Malaya, the physical recovery of the rubber industry from the effects of the war is now virtually complete. Production in 1947 was nearly 100,000 tons above the 1940 level.
    Satisfactory progress has also been made with the rehabilitation of the tin industry, but in the nature of things the rehabilitation of an industry dependent on heavy engineering equipment must inevitably be rather slow. The physical damage suffered by the mines during the Japanese occupation was severe and the shortage of steel and the delay in the delivery of electrical machinery continue to hold up full recovery. I understand that all the hydraulic mines are working again; that there are now 65 dredges in operation as compared with 100 in use before the war; and that over 50 per cent. of the Chinese industry is working again mostly with gravel pump mines. If the present progress is maintained rehabilitation should be substantially completed by about the end of next year.
    Brigadier Rayner: Leading on from there, is the Minister quite satisfied that the steel allocation for both these industries in Malaya is a perfectly fair one; and, secondly, does he appreciate that neither of these industries is able to
    368
    rehabilitate itself completely out of its own resources?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: In reply to the first part of the question, they will certainly have the highest possible priority with regard to steel. There is no question about that. In regard to the second part, with the present prices, particularly in tin, they should be able to rehabilitate themselves very largely out of their own resources.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many outrages have been committed in Malaya during May and June; and in how many instances have the perpetrators been brought to justice.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: During May and June there were 52 murders and 27 attempted murders, as well as 11 cases of arson and 31 of robbery, assault or intimidation. Two hundred and twenty-one persons were arrested in connection with these crimes; seven others were shot dead by the police or military in the course of operations.
    Mr. Lipson: Could my hon. Friend say whether the position there is improving or getting worse, and what is the estimated number of terrorists responsible for these outrages?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I would say that the position is slightly better and that about 5,000 terrorists are involved.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the Minister give the House an assurance that adequate steps are being taken to safeguard the lives of British subjects out there?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, I believe that to be the case. We have certainly given the authorities in Malaya all the support for which they have asked.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the Secretary of State be dealing fully with this matter in the Colonial Office Debate tomorrow, and will that not be the most convenient time to discuss this matter?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, my right hon. Friend will be dealing with this to-morrow.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will send military reinforcements to Malaya to enable adequate protection to be provided against the lawless outbreaks that are taking place there.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The needs of the situation in Malaya are under constant review and my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the authorities in Malaya and the Service Ministers regarding the degree of military support which is called for in the present emergency.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the residents in Malaya do not accept the statement that the action taken by the authorities is adequate, that they consider that this is not a police matter, and that more military forces should be sent? Will the Minister be careful to see we avoid a repetition of what took place in Palestine?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: This will be dealt with tomorrow.

  ST. LUCIA (FIRE DAMAGE, CASTRIES)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated damage done by the fire at Castries; how the cost of rebuilding is to be met; and why so much damage was done before the fire was put out.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The Administrator has provisionally estimated the loss at a little under £2,000,000. Insurance payments, covering about one quarter of the damage, will be available to pay for rebuilding, and no doubt other private funds will be forthcoming. A contribution from His Majesty's Government is under consideration. As regards the third part of the Question, I am informed that a prolonged drought had reduced pressure in the street hydrants. A Commission of Inquiry has been appointed by the St. Lucia Government to examine the causes and handling of the fire.
  Mr. Gammans: Any suspicion of arson?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Not that I am aware.

  GIBRALTAR EVACUEES
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many evacuees from Gibraltar still remain in
  370
  camps in Northern Ireland; and when it is expected that they will all be repatriated.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: There are 78 Gibraltar evacuees in Northern Ireland. They are to be transferred to the Fulham Road Institution pending their repatriation to Gibraltar. This transfer will be completed before the end of July, and the remaining camp will then be closed. In reply to the second part of the Question, more than 600 evacuees have been repatriated this year, and further repatriations will take place as and when the Gibraltar Government can provide accommodation.
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many evacuees from Gibraltar are accommodated in the Fulham Road Institution; how many are employed; how many contribute to their board and lodging; and when it is expected to release these premises.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: There are 605 Gibraltar evacuees living at the Fulham Road Institution. Two hundred and five are in employment and the remainder are mostly dependents and persons incapable of work. Ninety-five evacuees are at present contributing towards their board and lodging, and all evacuees who are in employment will be required to pay charges for board and lodging. It is not yet possible to indicate when the premises may be released. This will very largely depend on the progress of repatriation.
  Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that these people are living in very squalid conditions; and, as the Minister himself says, many of them have nothing to do, which is not desirable either in their own interests or in the interests of the neighbourhood, will he do everything possible to get them back quickly to Gibraltar?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS (MINISTERS' EVIDENCE)
  Earl Winterbanasked the Prime Minister if there are any rules governing the giving of evidence by Ministers before Royal Commissions on subjects for which they are not departmentally responsible.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. It is the usual custom that evidence before Royal Commissions and similar bodies shall be given by officials rather than by Ministers, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows of no rule on the subject.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does not the Lord President of the Council think it desirable that Ministers who have made allegations against public institutions like the Press, should, when requested to do so, give evidence before Commissions inquiring into those institutions?
  Mr. Morrison: That is not strictly related to the Question. I have been asked a general Question and I have given a reply. If a question is to be asked on a specific matter I think it should be put down.
  Brigadier Head: Would it not be fair to see that the so-called prostituted and presumably verminous Press should have a chance of justifying itself and that the Minister of Health should give evidence before the Royal Commission on the Press?
  Mr. Morrison: That is even more specific. I think it had better be put on the Paper.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the constitutional implications of this Question which the Lord President seems to treat rather lightly, I beg to give notice, on behalf of several hon. Members on this side of the House and on my own behalf, that I will put forward this question for submission for discussion on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. We may have an interesting Debate.

  AIRCRAFT PURCHASES (INQUIRY)
  Mr. George Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the committee of business men appointed to inquire into the methods of ordering aircraft for the three airways corporations; and what are the Committee's recommendations.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to my hon. Friend the
  372
  Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on 3rd May, this is not a formal committee of inquiry and it may not present a formal report. It has not yet finished its work.
  Mr. Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when we shall hear what the committee's recommendations are?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that the House will be able to do so. The appointment of the committee was not announced in this House in a formal way. It is an informal consultation, by which advice is given. It is for the Minister to decide. No doubt if any changes of policy arise the Minister will announce them to the House.
  Mr. Ward: If a Question is put down to the Lord President at a later date, will he answer it?
  Mr. Morrison: It depends upon what the Question is.

  ARMED FORCES

    Poles
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Defence how many Poles are serving in each of the three Services; and in what capacity.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): At the end of June, 440 Poles were serving in the Royal Air Force, 385 in the Army and four in the Royal Navy, a total of 829. They are employed in various capacities according to their qualifications and the requirements of the Services. In addition, there were 320 members of the R.A.F. Section of the Polish Resettlement Corps on loan to the Royal Air Force, all of whom are to be withdrawn during July.
    Mr. Piratin: Are any of these men acting as officers to British troops?
    Mr. Alexander: They are being used as any ordinary members of British Forces may be used.
    Mr. Piratin: My question was quite specific and the Minister surely could answer it. Are any of these Poles being used as officers in charge of British troops?
    Mr. Alexander: I should like to have notice of that question.

    Armament Manufacture
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Minister of Defence what arrangements have been made for the manufacture in Great Britain of armaments which are to be standardised on the U.S. pattern.
    Mr. Alexander: None, Sir.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Does that mean that the United States will have a complete monopoly of armament manufacture for Britain and Western Europe, and if so, will the Minister tell that to the heavy industrial workers?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

    Manpower
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Defence if he will make available a statement of defence manpower at the latest convenient date, distinguishing between uniformed and civilian personnel and indicating the strength of the auxiliary forces and the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. I have today placed in the Vote Office copies of a statement giving this information. It is my intention to make a similar statement available at quarterly intervals.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Tomatoes
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food to whom the secondary wholesale profit on tomatoes is payable in area 6 in respect of home-grown tomatoes sold under the provisions of S.R. & O., No. 828, between 12th July and 22nd August.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Under the Tomatoes Order, 1948, which has now been revoked, the secondary wholesale margin was payable to the trader who bought from a primary wholesaler or from a selling agent acting on behalf of the grower.
    Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Lady say whether additional profits go back to the grower or are reflected in a lower price to the consumer?
    Dr. Summerskill: There is no control now of any kind. The Order has been revoked.

    Rice (Distribution)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he will now announce the arrangements made for the distribution of rice; whether he will give special consideration to restaurants, canteens and hotels which cater particularly for people from the East; what the price will be to the public; and how many points will be required.
    Dr. Summerskill: We hope to make an announcement in the near future.

    Pig Products (Exports)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Food why he exported large quantities of pig products to foreign countries during 1947, while he appealed to the British Dominions to export similar products to the United Kingdom; and what is his present policy with regard to this trade.
    Dr. Summerskill: Very small quantities of pig products were exported during 1947 to meet the requirements of the Channel Islands, Malta, Gibraltar, and the Services overseas. No other exports have been, or will be, permitted until supplies are greatly improved.
    Sir J. Mellor: Were quantities of bacon and ham sent to Portugal?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The whole amount we sent abroad was one-half of one per cent. of our total supplies of these products.

    Tinned Horsemeat
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food what quantity of tinned horsemeat has been imported during the last two years.
    Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.
    Mr. John Paton: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the horseflesh referred to comes from mares' nests?

    Catering Establishments (Courses)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange that items such as bread, soup, cheese and fresh fruits each be considered as half a course in restaurants and hotels, so as to provide a greater choice than at present.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend is arranging for fresh fruit to be served without counting as a course.
    Mr. Freeman: When making any changes, will the Minister of Food consider this question of the three-course arrangements?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that bread and cheese is already one course.

    Surveys, Glasgow
    Mr. McFarlaneasked the Minister of Food whether it is with his authority that employers in Glasgow have been asked to give facilities for the weighing and measuring of their employees under a Ministry of Food Survey.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. This survey has been operating since 1943. At that time several panels were set up comprising groups of housewives and workers in industry who were prepared to record their weight at quarterly intervals, and three of these panels are still in operation.
    Mr. McFarlane: Is not the Minister aware that this letter is directed particularly to employers to provide facilities for this measuring and weighing? How can the Minister possibly justify such expenditure of labour and materials, as well as the intrusion upon the time of both employers and employees?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this scheme was devised by the Coalition Government.

    Snoek
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Food in which papers at fishing ports advertisements have recently appeared recommending tinned snoek; what sales approximately have taken place in these areas; and why it is considered desirable to cultivate a taste for snoek when relatively large quantities of herring and other native-caught fish are available.
    Dr. Summerskill: Since there are a number of newspapers concerned, I propose to circulate the details asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no details of sales of snoek in these areas. Snoek is intended to meet a demand for canned food, which can be kept as a reserve. It does not, therefore, compete with fresh
    376
    fish, for which we are running a considerably bigger advertising campaign.
    Sir W. Darling: In placing these advertisements has the Ministry discriminated between the fishing ports and other centres of the country where the advertising would be more appropriate? It has been drawn to my attention that persons engaged in the fishing industry are receiving this very costly advertising encouraging them to purchase this imported tinned fish.
    Dr. Summerskill: We have advertised in the national papers. Many housewives in this country have no facilities for keeping perishable food and there are times when a tin of snoek is very useful.
    Following is the information:
    Snoek advertisement ran in the national papers during weeks beginning 13th and 20th June, total cost being between £6,000 and £7,000.

    Yarmouth: Yarmouth Mercury.

    Lowestoft: Lowestoft Journal.

    Grimsby: Evening Telegraph, Saturday Telegraph, Grimsby News.

    Fleetwood: Fleetwood Chronicle.

    Aberdeen: Press and Journal, Evening Express, Weekly Journal.

    Hull: Hull Daily Mail, Hull Times, Lincolnshire Times.

    Milford Haven: Pembroke and West Wales Guardian, Pembroke Western Telegraph.

    Hartlepool: Northern Daily Mail.

    Newlyn: Cornishman, Western Morning News.

    Swansea: South Wales Evening Post, Y-Tyst.

    Newhaven: Lewes Sussex Express

    Peterhead: Buchan Observer.

    Fraserburgh: Herald.

    Buckie: Banffs Advertiser.

    Lossiemouth: Elgin Courant, Elgin Northern Scot.

    Wick: John o'Groat Journal, Caithness Courier.

    Oban: Oban Times.

    Jam (South Africa)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food what quantities of sugar and tinplate have been sent to South Africa during the last twelve months to enable jam to be made and sent to the United Kingdom; and what were the total freight costs in both directions.
    Dr. Summerskill: The sugar we exported to South Africa did not come from United Kingdom supplies. We do not know how much of it, nor of the tinplate exported under Board of Trade licence, was used for jam. The outgoing freight cannot therefore be calculated.

    377
    The freight costs for imports of South African canned jam over the past year were about £200,000.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister satisfied that this extremely extravagant way of supplying the British consumer with jam is better than importing the fruit?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must realise that when we import jam we at the same time get sugar, of which we are short in this country.

  SOAP RATION (CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Food what is the estimated cost of the "Wash Now" campaign; and if it is proposed to increase the ration of soap to enable the advice given to be put into effect.
  Dr. Summerskill: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the British Tourists and Holidays Board's campaign to improve hygiene in catering establishments. The first part of the Question is therefore, a matter for my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade. I regret that it is not possible to increase the soap ration, but I hope that catering establishments will take up their full ration and will make every effort to maintain a high standard of cleanliness in their businesses.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister say whether the advice to wash more often has been sent to Government Departments, including the Ministry of Fuel and Power?
  Dr. Segal: Can the Minister say whether, even if the soap ration were increased by a substantial amount, the hands of the Tory Party would ever be clean?
  Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say how much of the revenue of the Tourist Board comes from the pockets of the taxpayer and ratepayer?

  FRENCH WINES AND BRANDY (PRICES)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food why the price paid f.o.b. for government-controlled French wines and brandy was only 10 per cent. less after
  378
  devaluation of the franc, although the franc was devalued by about 45 per cent.
  Dr. Summerskill: As I told the hon. Member in my letter of 23rd June, prices of wines and brandy in France have increased, so that we do not get the full benefit of the devaluation.
  Mr. Keeling: What about the f.o.b. price? Was that not reduced, as the hon. Lady said in her reply of 28th June?
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me, and asked that question before, and I gave him the full details in my letter of 23rd June. If he will read that letter he will find the full answer to his supplementary question.
  Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that claret bought by the trade and not by the Government has been reduced in price by 20 per cent. since the de-valuation, as an act of grace on the part of the shippers? Is that not a striking proof of the heavy burden which is imposed upon the consumers by Government buying?
  Dr. Summerskill: This has nothing to do with Government buying at all. It is a question of the prices paid to French growers. We are told that the prices of grapes and bottling have increased. We cannot influence the policy of the French growers.

  KENYA (INDIANS)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Indians from Kenya and Tanganyika, respectively, have received agricultural training under the scheme announced by the Kenya Government in 1945 on Land Utilisation and Settlement.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is inquiring into this, and will let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not consider it the duty of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the very serious situation which is still continuing in British Guiana, to make a public statement now

  379
  to the House instead of circulating the answer to the Questions which have been asked?
  Mr. Speaker: I object to these questions now. It is the responsibility of the Minister, if he chooses, to give the reply and nobody else's. If hon. Members are going to get up and say, "I want a reply to this," it is quite out of Order. The hon. Member may think that it is an important statement. It may be, but the responsibility is with the Minister and there should not be pressure by Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Are we to understand that the usual form, "By permission of the hon. Member, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT," means nothing, and that an hon. Member who objects to it being so circulated cannot have the answer given orally?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister said, "By permission of the hon. Member who asked the Question." The hon. Member had not put down a Question at all. He was—I do not know what the expression is—
  Mr. Rankin: He missed the boat.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member who had put the Question down had objected, there would have been something to be said, but for any hon. Member who has not put the Question down to get up and object is wrong.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the expression which is used "By permission of the House"?
  Mr. Speaker: It was "By permission of the hon. Member." The Minister is answering the hon. Member and not the House, although the House hears the answer.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In any case if an hon. Member has the right to object to a
  circulated answer instead of an oral answer, is not the right remedy to object at the time when the Question is called? I suggest that that remedy would not be exercised after Question hour has finished.
  Mr. Speaker: About seven hon. Members had Questions down on the same subject, and not one of them objected.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it not then in Order for me to invite—or to re-invite, as I have already done it—the Minister concerned to make a statement now?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a very undesirable practice. We have had it several times. An hon. Member is very keen about his own Question. Lots of hon. Members can be quite keen about their own Questions. If they are all to get up after Questions and say, "Can I press the Minister to answer that?"—after all, it is the Minister's responsibility and nobody else's. We should carry on Question hour for I do not know how long by everybody asking for their own Questions to be answered. Personally, I deprecate that very strongly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any changes to announce in today's Business?
Mr. Herbert Morrison: Yes, Sir. In addition to the Business announced for consideration today, we shall ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
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, 260; Noes, 102.

Division No. 255.]

AYES.

[3.34 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Blackburn, A. R.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Bacon, Miss A.

Blyton, W. R.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Balfour, A.

Boardman, H.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Barton, C.

Bottomley, A. G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Battley, J. R.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Alpass, J. H.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

Attewell, H. C.

Benson, G.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Austin, H. Lewis

Bing, G. H. C.

Bramall, E. A.

Awbery, S. S.

Binns, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Brown, George (Belper)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Ranger, J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen., N.)

Rankin, J.

Carmichael, James

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

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Richards, R.

Champion, A. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Janner, B.

Robens, A.

Cobb, F. A.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Cocks, F. S.

Jenkins, R. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Coldrick, W.

Johnston, Douglas

Rogers, G. H. R.

Collins, V. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Royle, C.

Cook, T. F.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Scollan, T.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Keenan, W.

Scott-Elliott, W.

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

Kendall, W. D.

Segal, Dr. S.

Cove, W. G.

Kenyon, C.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Crawley, A.

Kirby, B. V.

Sharp, Granville

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Daggar, G.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

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

Daines, P.

Leonard, W.

Shurmer, P.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Leslie, J. R.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skeffington, A. M.

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

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lindgren, G. S.

Skinnard, F. W.

Deer, G.

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Delargy, H. J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Diamond, J.

Logan, D. G.

Snow, J. W.

Dodds, N. N.

Longden, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lyne, A. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McEntee, V. La T.

Stokes, R. R.

Dumpleton, C. W.

McGhee, H. G.

Stross, Dr. B.

Dye, S.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stubbs, A. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Edelman, M.

McKinlay, A. S.

Swingler, S.

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

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Sylvester, G. O.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McLeavy, F.

Symonds, A. L.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Fairhurst, F.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Farthing, W. J.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Fernyhough, E.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

Mayhew, C. P.

Thurtle, Ernest

Foot, M. M.

Medland, H. M.

Tiffany, S.

Forman, J. C.

Mellish, R. J.

Timmons, J.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Titterington, M. F.

Gallacher, W.

Monslow, W.

Tolley, L.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Moody, A. S.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Walkden, E.

Gibbins, J.

Morley, R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Warbey, W. N.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Watkins, T. E.

Goodrich, H. E.

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

Watson, W. M.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mort, D. L.

Weitzman, D.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Moyle, A.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Nally, W.

West, D. G.

Grenfell, D. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Grey, C. F.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

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

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Oldfield, W. H.

Wigg, George

Gunter, R. J.

Paget, R. T.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Guy, W. H.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Parker, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Willis, E.

Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

Pearson, A.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Harrison, J.

Peart, T. F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Haworth, J.

Perrins, W.

Woods, G. S.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Piratin, P.

Wyatt, W.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Yates, V. F.

Herbison, Miss M.

Popplewell, E.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Hobson, C. R.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Holman, P.

Proctor, W. T.

Horabin, T. L.

Pryde, D. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hoy, J.

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.

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

Randall, H. E.

382

383

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Nutting, Anthony

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

Barlow, Sir J.

Hinchingbrooks, Viscount

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Bossom, A. C.

Jarvis, Sir J.

Raikes, H. V.

Bower, N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Keeling, E. H.

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Renton, D.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Butcher, H. W.

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

Robinson, Roland

Carson, E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ropner, Col. L.

Challen, C.

Linstead, H. N.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cole, T. L.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Low, A. R. W.

Snadden, W. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Spence, H. R.

Cuthbert, W. N.

McFarlane, C. S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife E.)

De la Bère, R.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Digby, S. W.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Sutcliffe, H.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Touche, G. C.

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

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

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gammans, L. D.

Molson, A. H. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Glyn, Sir R.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Grimston, R. V.

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harden, J. R. E.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Mr. Studholme and

Brigadier Mackeson.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.44 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It is usual for a Minister in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to indicate that he will explain its provisions to the House and defend them. I regret that, owing to the alterations made in this Bill in another place, there are two Clauses which no one can explain—Clauses 11 and 12—and I do not propose to defend them. I have to intimate to the House that for the reasons I shall give in the course of my speech, the Government will ask the House to remove from the Bill those Amendments which were carried against the Government in another place, and to restore the Bill in that respect to its original drafting.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he meant the Amendments to Clauses 11 and 12 or all the Amendments?
  Mr. Ede: No, I think that, when we remove some of the other Amendments, Clauses 11 and 12 will be a little more comprehensible.
  Mr. Pickthorn: All the Amendments?
  Mr. Ede: All the Amendments which were carried against the Government advice. There were some Amendments that were made by another place on the advice of the Government, and those we shall ask the House to retain if an effort should be made here to remove them.
  This Bill is one of the utmost constitutional importance. I think that will be agreed on both sides of the House. The passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 created a number of problems which have become increasingly acute as the years have passed. We are now engaged in watching the working of that remarkable Act of Parliament, which I believe is unique in the history of the world. The people of this country and the people of the self-governing Dominions should from time to time consider how the working out of the provisions of the Statute of West-
  386
  minster will affect their relationships with one another and their relationships with the inhabitants of the various parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the British Empire.
  We believe that this Bill is a natural sequel to the Statute of Westminster of 1931, and what has happened in quite recent years reinforces our opinion on that point. Our present nationality law derives from the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which was a codifying and amending statute, and in the course of the years that followed the passing of that Act other Commonwealth countries enacted similar legislation. Thus there came into existence an almost identical set of laws in the several countries of the British Commonwealth. There was some minor differences but, substantially, the laws were the same and we had practically achieved what I think has been the aim of all who have dealt with the matter, a common status. But, of course, the common status rests on the laws not merely being the same but remaining the same or, if they are amended, being amended by agreement and by mutual action in each of the constituent self-governing parts of the Commonwealth.
  It was a principle of the system that alterations to it should only be made as the result of consultation and agreement between the members of the Commonwealth. Now this has had its disadvantages, particularly with regard to the position of married women. It has meant a delay in securing agreement on what many of us have regarded for many years as a much needed amendment of the law. A further drawback is that as the United Kingdom has not defined by law its nationals or citizens, and that the only status possessed by the people of the United Kingdom is that of British subjects, there has grown up a tendency to regard the term "British subject" as meaning a person belonging to Great Britain, and to obscure its true meaning of a person belonging to any country of the Commonwealth who is a subject of the King. We think it highly desirable that a definition should be discovered which will make it quite clear that that is a term which applies to every person in the British Commonwealth and Empire who owes allegiance to the King.
  A minor inconvenience resulting from the absence of any specific definition of

  387
  United Kingdom nationals or citizens has been that, in treaties or in legislation, when it has been necessary to refer to such persons, this country has been obliged to use some such phrase as "belonging to the United Kingdom." While satisfactory for ordinary colloquial purposes, such a phrase lacks the precision desirable in an Act of Parliament or an international agreement. These inconveniences, however, would not in themselves have necessitated altering the present system which, as I have previously stated, has had many positive advantages. The reason for making the change is that the common code system, which was beginning to break down a few years ago, has, in fact, now broken down.
  In 1945 Canada passed a Canadian Citizenship Act which completely altered the position and introduced an entirely new principle. The Canadian Act established a citizenship for Canada and declared all Canadian citizens to be British subjects. Section 28 of that Act reads:
  "A person who has acquired the status of British subject by birth or naturalisation under the laws of any country of the British Commonwealth other than Canada to which he was subject at the time of his birth or naturalisation shall be recognised in Canada as a British subject."
  I need not go into all the technical differences which have arisen, as the result of the Canadian Act, between Canadian law and our own, but I will give one example. The acquisition of nationality by descent is now different in this country from what it is in Canada. If a person who is a British subject by reason of his birth in this country goes abroad and has a son born abroad, that son is a British subject. If that son has a son, the grandson of the first man is not a British subject unless his birth is registered at a consulate. Under the Canadian Act, if a Canadian citizen, who is a British subject by virtue of being a Canadian citizen, goes abroad and has a son, that son is not a Canadian citizen if born abroad; but he may well be a British subject by our law.
  I am quite sure that every one who recollects some of our difficulties immediately after the war over the exact nationality of William Joyce and other people will recognise how undesirable it is that there should be people in the world whom British law might regard as British subjects but
  388
  who by Canadian law might not be regarded as British subjects. It is highly desirable, therefore, that we should, if possible, arrive at an arrangement with all the countries of the Commonwealth whereby the wide family of "British subject" should be a body of persons who can be easily recognised as such in all parts of the King's Dominions, and also be so recognised without doubt by themselves and by the people of the country in which they happen to be residing. The essential feature of the Bill as we introduced it—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the right hon. Gentleman said that the so-called common code had broken down. So far he has given only one country as an example and only one instance of the way in which it has broken down. Are there no other countries and no other examples?
  Mr. Ede: No. This is the first country which has so legislated, but we know that other Dominions are contemplating legislation; in some cases it is in draft. It is highly desirable that the complication introduced by Canada should not be further complicated, if we can avoid it, by, let us say, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa also introducing legislation of their own in which the status of citizen and British subject may differ in each of those countries from what it now is in Canada and from what it is under the law here. It would become very serious if that were so.
  The essential feature of the Bill is that each of the self-governing Commonwealth countries shall determine by its own legislation who are its citizens and shall declare these citizens to be British subjects; and shall recognise as British subjects the citizens of all the other countries of the Commonwealth. The structure of the edifice thus created would be the same for all the countries. Each would confer its citizenship, and through citizenship of a country—and through citizenship alone—will a person become a British subject. It would be contrary to the scheme—and this is one of the most disastrous Amendments made in another place—that a country should create British subjects without passing them through the gateway of its own citizenship.
  I have some difficulty in dealing with this matter because I must not allude to a Debate in another place during the current Session, but it is almost impossible

  389
  to explain the present plight of the Bill without in some way indicating what transpired there. It has been suggested that what we are proposing is a revolutionary change, hastily made by officials without adequate—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ede: I notice that the noble Lord agrees, as usual, with something that is completely untrue—that the change was made hastily by officials and without adequate public discussion. Since the noble Lord has now undertaken to defend that proposition I think I may take it as coming from him and, therefore, I am relieved of the difficulty I had anticipated.
  Let me say to the noble Lord, through you, Sir, that this is not at all a correct picture of events. This constitutional issue was raised as far back as 1930 and 1937 during the Imperial Conferences of those years. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, was the outcome of the 1930 Conference and the problems in the field of nationality which would arise from that Statute were very much present in the minds of the persons who attended that Conference. It was known that some of the Commonwealth countries wanted a citizenship of their own and one that would be recognisable for international purposes. When we are dealing with great, thriving countries like the Dominions, with their legitimate ambitions for nationhood, it can be well understood that this kind of problem is one which confronts them acutely.
  Do not let us forget, also, that some of these countries have their own internal difficulties, because many of their inhabitants are not people of British descent. Therefore, we are dealing with a subject which is vital to the maintenance of the connection and which has to be handled very delicately unless considerable prejudice is to be aroused in the minds of people who may well desire to remain quite loyal to the connection with the Commonwealth, but who sometimes find the word "British" rather irksome.
  The Government of 1930 went into the matter most thoroughly and reached the conclusion that there were only two ways of maintaining the common status. The first was the existing method of each country having identical status and the other was the method now in the Bill,
  390
  namely, for each country to define its own citizens and then to declare that the citizens of the other countries shall have the common status of a British subject. The second alternative was not the one put forward by the British Government at the Conference in 1930 because, apart from other considerations, it was realised that the creation of a separate citizenship for the United Kingdom and the Colonies presented many difficulties.
  The Statute of Westminster—I am now talking of the time when that Measure was still a Bill—was itself a great step forward in the development of the Commonwealth idea. No one then knew accurately what would be its repercussions on Commonwealth relations and, with the British dislike for making more changes than are necessary, and knowing that events would shape themselves, this country thought it best to continue the old system, which we knew, as long as it could be made to last. However, there was discussion at the Conference about the difficulties to which this system gave rise and it was realised that it could only be maintained by the common agreement of the countries to keep their laws more or less identical.
  The subject came up again at the Imperial Conference in 1937 and the question of a separate citizenship for each area was discussed. But, again there was no general desire for change, and this country itself was inclined against it because of the difficulties inherent in the creation of a citizenship for ourselves. Then the war years intervened and the next chapter opened in September, 1945, when Canada advised the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth countries that it found it desirable to introduce legislation to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of Canadian citizenship. The Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, was in fact framed on the second alternative which we had realised in 1932 to be one of the two ways of keeping the common status. What we have foreseen in this country in 1930 has, in fact, come to pass. The Canadian Act means the end of the old system and if agreement can be secured we must follow the Canadian lead.
  The matter was, therefore, brought before the Prime Ministers' meeting held in London in May, 1946. I was invited to attend that meeting to discuss this

  391
  subject with the assembled Prime Ministers. I was a very small minnow among those great Tritons, but I can assure the House that each of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries represented at that Prime Ministers' meeting regarded this subject as of the utmost importance and one with which it was necessary to deal without any unnecessary delay. The Prime Ministers' meeting authorised the calling of a meeting of experts in nationality law from each of their countries. There was a general expression of views by the Prime Ministers, who had been informed that the matter would be discussed, in favour of changing over to the Canadian system, but it was decided that this meeting of their experts on nationality law should be held to consider the matter in detail, for while it is quite easy to arrive at the conclusion that there should be a common status as a general principle, when it comes to drafting the necessary legislation it is a matter of very considerable complication.
  The conference was held in February, 1947. It was held under the chairmanship of the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office, Sir Alexander Maxwell, a very distinguished public servant of great experience. Of all the great services he has rendered this country none has been greater than the way in which he handled that conference and managed to get from persons of most diverse views and descent an agreement that could be embodied in a Bill in this country and could be recommended to each of the Dominions as a suitable model for them to follow.
  The conference lasted from 3rd to 26th February, 1947. The main issues were considered in full conference and details of parts of the scheme were worked out by three committees on all of which the older Dominions were represented. There were 11 meetings of the full conference, and eight in all of the committees. These delegates could not commit their Governments, but a complete report of the proceedings of the conference was drawn up and submitted by them to their respective Governments. Subject to points of detail, the scheme in the Bill as introduced in another place is the scheme prepared at the conference, and we have reason to believe that it commands the support and adherence of each of the other Governments of the Commonwealth
  392
  Three important changes have been made by another place and I must draw the attention of the House to those changes. The first was an addition to Clause 1 of the expression "Commonwealth citizen" as an alternative to "British subject." That was an addition made at the suggestion of His Majesty's Government. We now have India, Pakistan and Ceylon as Dominions within the British Commonwealth of Nations, and while I imagine no one in this House feels the slightest indignity at being called a British subject—in fact it is a term we all hold in honour as something which signifies a great deal of history and tradition—it can be well understood that these people who are not of British descent find it a rather difficult term to reconcile with the granting to them of nationhood and their recognition as independent sovereign powers within this great Commonwealth.
  To them also the word "subject" unfortunately has the significance of being a member of a subject race. That of course is not what the word means to us. In fact, it is the reverse of what happened in the Channel Islands during the war, when the Germans tried to stir up animosity against us amongst the islanders by saying that they had come to relieve them of the conquest that the British had imposed upon them. They were amazed when the Channel Islanders said "You have got your history quite wrong. The British never conquered us, we conquered them." These words and phrases which to those of us in this country who have grown up with them and understand their exact significance are quite harmless, may, in certain connotations among others of the population of the British Commonwealth of Nations, have meanings and associations that may be very detrimental to the maintenance of the ties that bind us. That was the first Amendment, and it was made by the Government in an effort to deal with the problem of those—and there may even be persons of Dutch descent in South Africa and of French descent in Canada—who would sooner call themselves Commonwealth citizens than British subjects.
  The second Amendment was made against the advice of the Government, and it removed the term "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and substituted therefor "British subject of the United

  393
  Kingdom and Colonies." That is bringing the people in the United Kingdom and Colonies into the general family without their passing through what we believe ought to be a common gate of citizenship of one of the parts of the Commonwealth. I realise that I should get into great difficulty if I commented too much upon the arguments that have been used. I am not quite sure how much the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), while he appears to accept the result, would accept the means that led up to the result. I do not know whether he would feel that the word "citizen" has a republican flavour and is therefore undesirable to him.
  I would remind the House that probably the greatest Debate that ever took place in this House, at least the most historic Debate, on the question of nationality, the Don Pacifico Debate under Lord Palmerston was one in which Palmerston justified his defence of that, I think, somewhat undesirable character Don Pacifico, on the ground that he was a British subject; and he quoted in support the famous claim to Roman citizenship of days gone by. Therefore, I do not think that there is anything derogatory or revolutionary in a person being called British citizen. After all Bunyan in "The Pilgrim's Progress" refers to the citizenship of heaven, and as far as I know heaven is not conducted on republican principles. Up to recent times it was believed that Bunyan soldiered in the Royalist Army, but he has recently been discovered in the muster rolls of the Parliamentary Army, as any one who has read "Mansoul" would realise would be likely to be the case. There is nothing derogatory in a person in this country or in the Colonies entering British subject-hood through the gateway of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  The change that has been made here has in fact wrecked the Bill or would do so, if it were allowed to remain in the Bill, for it is something more than a mere matter of words. We must have a scheme so that our fellows in the Dominions can understand and can realise that we are in fact recognising the equality of status with this country of each of the Dominions that has been created by the Statute of Westminster. I know there are also some who feel that it is wrong to
  394
  have a citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Some people feel that it would be a bad thing to give the coloured races of the Empire the idea that, in some way or other, they are the equals of people in this country. The Government do not subscribe to that view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who does?"] I gather now that the noble Lord has parted company from some other people.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have not even had the honour of addressing the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ede: I thought I heard an interruption from the noble Lord. If I did not, I am sorry for the House and for him.
  We believe wholeheartedly that the common citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is an essential part of the development of the relationship between this Mother Country and the Colonies who are administered in varying degrees of self government and tutelage by the Colonial Office, and we do not subscribe to the doctrine satirised in the "Biglow Papers":
  "If we say'n our pletform thet all men are brothers,
  We don't mean thet some folks ain't more so'n some others;"
  We believe and we hope it will be understood that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies means that when we talk for example of the development of the Colonies, etc., we recognise the right of the colonial peoples to be regarded as men and brothers with the people of this country. In our view that is essential to any proper understanding of the Measure. We shall therefore ask the House to re-insert the original words in the Bill and to delete from the Bill those words which appear to us to make complete nonsense of the idea of the development of this country and the Colonies which has been gaining ground in recent years.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Some of us have not got the Bill in its original form before us. Would the Home Secretary state the exact words which will be re-inserted there?
  Mr. Ede: I would say that it is a Committee point as to which words are to be deleted and inserted.
  Mr. Harris: Is not that the point which the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing for the last few minutes?
  Mr. Ede: Clause 1 (1) of the Bill as now drafted says:
  "Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies. …"
  We propose to make it read again "citizen." [Laughter.] It is very unusual for a Minister explaining a Bill to be asked a question like that or to have to explain a Bill which has been so drastically amended elsewhere. We propose to make the Bill again read:
  "Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. …"
  instead of "a British subject." That means that in order to become a British subject a person will have to be, in the category we are now considering, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If he is such a citizen he will become a British subject, just as a Canadian citizen under the existing Canadian law, through Canadian citizenship, becomes a British subject.
  The third change made in the Lords was carried on a Division against the Government, and relates to the status of Eire citizens. The Eire Government was represented at the Conference in London in 1947, and there has been subsequent correspondence with them on the subject of the Bill. It would be too much to say that they agree with every provision of the Bill, or that it fully satisfies the desires which they expressed. But it is no secret that they regard the Bill, as introduced in another place, with Amendments moved there on behalf of the Government and accepted without opposition, as an improvement on the present position, which they feel—and in this His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom sympathises with them—to be most unsatisfactory. On the other hand, the Amendments which were carried against the Government would, it is clear, take away much of this improvement, and I cannot doubt that the Eire Government would think it unfortunate if in this respect the Bill was passed in the form in which it has reached this House. We shall, therefore, ask the House to re-instate the Bill to the condition in which it was introduced. I hope that that is the end of the controversial matters connected with this Bill.
  396
  There is in this Bill one other important change in the nationality law to which I wish to allude, and that is the position of the married woman. The Bill carries out the promise which I made to the House in 1946 that that law would be amended. Under the existing law a British born woman, on marriage to an alien, loses her British nationality if she acquires the nationality of her husband. Under the Bill this will no longer be the case. Any woman who has lost her British nationality by marriage, or during the continuance of marriage, will automatically re-acquire it on the commencement of the Act.
  Conversely, and quite as important, an alien woman will no longer, as at present, automatically acquire British nationality on marriage to a British subject. If she desires to acquire British nationality she will have to make application to the Secretary of State who will have power to refuse. It is notorious that there are numbers of women in this country who have no other real connection with the national life of this country than that they paid some Englishman a sum of money to go through a ceremony of marriage with them and thereafter, no matter how great a danger they may be to the community, it is impossible for the Secretary of State to deport them. We propose that a British born woman shall remain a British subject unless, of her own choice, she elects to take some other nationality.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I understand the position with regard to women who are British subjects by birth reverting to their British nationality, but what is the position, when this Bill becomes an Act, of women of foreign birth who acquired British nationality through marriage? Do they revert to their foreign nationality?
  Mr. Ede: We have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to make that particular part of the Bill retrospective, much, may I say, as in some cases we should like to do so, and much as we feel that no great injustice would be done. It would, however, be very difficult to justify it completely, and therefore we have left that subject alone. But we have made retrospective the law with regard to British-born women, who have become aliens, regaining their British status.

  397
  I have detailed to the House the provisions of the Bill in the difficult circumstances which confront me, owing to the fact that I am really asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that I may ask the House to make drastic Amendments in it. But I do wish to commend the Bill, as it is advocated by the Government, most warmly to the consideration and support of the House. The maintenance of the British Commonwealth of Nations as a great, loyal confederation of people, enjoying in each individual part self-government and liberty unexampled in the history of the Empires of the world, is one of the duties that this generation owes to the world and to the generations to come. This is a living, growing organism, and we must expect that, from time to time, its growth will entail our having to consider very considerable changes in the structure and relationship of this magnificent political edifice. We feel that as a result of the negotiations I have described in detail to the House, these changes which we now propose carry the good will of every part of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown.
  In the lifetime of this Parliament we have seen the creation of the Dominions of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. They, after all, represent the adhesion to the British Commonwealth of Nations of great historic nationalities who are not British in their descent, but of whom this country may well be proud, in that it has trained them so that they are able to participate in this great self-governing group of nations. We therefore ask the House to give this Measure a Second reading. We shall ask in Committee that the Bill be restored on the controversial issues I have mentioned, to the form in which we drafted it, because we believe it is essential to the maintenance of the British Commonwealth. It alone allows a sufficient scope for the development which can already be seen as likely to occur.
  I would say one last word on this question of a citizen of the Colonies being linked with the United Kingdom. I recollect as a lad being told by my mother of the arbitration on the Venezuelan dispute, and of the fact that the final and clinching evidence that the boundary was where the British Government said it was, was the evidence of certain very primitive people, who said that their fathers had
  398
  told them that if they swam a certain river they were free from the slave hunters, because they were on British soil.
  It is true that we cannot admit all these backward peoples immediately into the full rights that British subjects in this country enjoy; but wherever the British Dominions are, what Lowell called, "the homespun dignity of man," is at least recognised to the extent of the denial of the right of anyone to have a chattel slave. By linking the United Kingdom and the Colonies, we must give these people a feeling that on that homespun dignity of man we recognise them as fellow-citizens and that our object, as far as they are concerned, is to hope to raise them to such a position of education, of training and of experience that they too shall be able to share in the grant of full self-government which this House has so generously given during the last few years to other places. It is in the full faith that the future development of this great bulwark of democratic civilisation will be helped and strengthened by the Measure that we commend it to the House.
  4.32 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Before I address myself to the arguments on this Bill, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it an intrusion if I venture to convey from his colleagues in every part of the House our deep sympathy with him in his recent loss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is one of the most far-reaching Measures affecting the British Commonwealth and Empire which has ever been presented to Parliament. The Statute of Westminster, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, merely gave legislative recognition to a long existing practice in fact. The present Bill replaces the entire existing structure of nationality law by a new one. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is the natural sequel to the Statute of Westminster. It has certainly had a very different period of gestation. The Statute of Westminster was enacted after a series of Imperial Conferences and in consequence of their deliberations and conclusions. The present Bill is being brought before Parliament on the eve of the first such Conference for over 10 years.

  399
  It is necessary to observe that the Prime Minister's announcement of 28th June was the first time it was made clear that there would be an Imperial Conference in October. His announcement of 5th May had merely stated that there would be a Conference when the necessary people could be got together to attend. Therefore, the date of the Conference was still quite uncertain at the time when this Bill received its consideration in another place on 11th May and on 21st and 24th June. The conception of developing British nationality and adjusting it to the situation in the Dominions is not at all a new idea. The earlier changes, however, did come about through Imperial Conferences; that is, they came about through Conferences at which there were represented the statesmen who were the leaders of the great self-governing States of the Commonwealth. More than that, the proceedings of these Conferences were published so that everyone might know what had happened, and what views had been exchanged, and might form his or her opinions in the full knowledge of such expressions of opinion.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the meeting of experts that preceded this Bill. It has several odd features. Its report was not published. Nothing was heard before the introduction of this Bill of the discussions among the different Commonwealth Governments that had been pursued before and after. I suggest that this secret manner of considering a subject of the greatest importance to the whole Commonwealth and its individual citizens emphasises how much has been lost by the lapse of the Imperial Conferences. That has been mentioned often in this House, and the Prime Minister has made the very poor defence that Prime Ministers are too busy to meet in Imperial Conference and consider the great affairs of our Commonwealth and Empire.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his argument that up to two years ago it had been possible to make the necessary changes by agreement. Of course, it is impossible to secure the necessary agreement that will make changes in the common status if the machinery of the Imperial Conference is ignored and postponed as it has been by His Majesty's present advisers. I believe that we have felt the loss in every aspect of our national
  400
  life. I am certain that we have felt the loss in the consideration of the subject now before the House. I suggest that it would be far better to place this matter on the agenda of the forthcoming Imperial Conference and then let this House debate it with the views of the leaders of the constituent parts of the Commonwealth before us.
  But the right hon. Gentleman has made his argument, and I grant at once that he used the most careful and tentative language as to whether the self-governing Dominions had agreed to this Measure or not. He certainly gave the impression, and I think he desired to give the impression, that they were favourably disposed. There is an immediate answer to that. Why not, so that the House will have it for consideration, include the terms of any agreement that has been reached? The right hon. Gentleman was tentative. Beside him, paragraph 6 of the White Paper is caution itself. I remind the House of the words:
  "The United Kingdom Government has subsequently been in correspondence with the Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon, and subject to what is said below with regard to Eire it is believed that legislation on the lines of this Bill will be acceptable to the other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth, and is likely to be followed by legislation on similar lines in many of these countries."
  If anyone were to plead an agreement based on circumstances of that kind, you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will appreciate more than most that they would not get far in any proceedings; but beyond that is an offence more important. There has been no statement from the Government or from any other source upon the objects which any or all of the Dominions desire to be achieved by the proposed United Kingdom legislation. In these circumstances, in that tentative state of affairs, the claim of Parliament to legislate on such a matter as this only after the views of the Dominions have been ascertained in full Imperial Conference is, in my view, unanswerable.
  But the Bill is before us, and I propose to consider it. I want to start, before our ways part, from the same attitude of mind as the right hon. Gentleman, because I am deeply anxious that everything should be done to maintain the

  401
  intimacy between the various parts of the Commonwealth, and I believe that the view that we are not foreign to each other inside the Commonwealth involves two aspects. In matters of high politics, we reserve the right to deal with each other in our own way, which is different from that in which we deal with other countries. Equally, we go far beyond the "most-favoured-nation" clause or anything of that kind. We have our own diplomatic machinery of High Commissioners as opposed to Ambassadors and in various other forms of activity we have the same special arrangements.
  But there is a second aspect, which is just as important, and that is the common basis of personal status, so that individual as well as public relations are un-foreign, and I believe that the second idea helps the first. I believe also that the lapse of strict constitutional bonds, such as the Colonial Laws Validity Act and matters of that kind, makes it all the more important that the practical elements should be strengthened, because, without such strengthening, the practical value of the Commonwealth in the modern world may be doubted by those whom we do not want to take that line.
  Therefore, I want to follow the right hon. Gentleman for a moment in his historical analysis, because I certainly get a very different result from an examination of what has happened up to now. The right hon. Gentleman said quite accurately that the Act of 1914 was the basis of our present nationality law, but I remind the House that that Act defines a British subject, substantially, apart from minor matters, as a person, or a descendant in the male line of a person, "born within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance." That was expressing the common law—again broadly, with exceptions which hon. and learned Members will realise—but it is from this allegiance that the status of a British subject derives in United Kingdom law, and it is the common acceptance of this basis of allegiance by the States Members of the Commonwealth which confers on their people and ourselves a common status. This common status of British subjects in all parts of the Commonwealth, which has hitherto rested, independently of statute, on the common allegiance of the countries of the Empire to the King, will, if this Bill is carried into effect in the form which the right hon. Gentleman
  402
  desires, rest only on the declaration in Clause 1.
  The Dominions all adopted the same nationality law, and enacted in their own Parliaments Acts identical with, or almost entirely similar to, the British Acts to which I have referred, and so we have it that their law of nationality and their view of the matter has been based on our law and statute and bound up with the concept of British subjecthood. That was the common status, and no other domestic nationality was known to the law of this country, nor, indeed, until two years ago, in Canada, to that of all the other self-governing Dominions of the British Commonwealth, but they have always reserved the right—and with this no one quarrels, but every one entirely agrees—to prescribe what qualifications were required of British subjects for local rights, such as immigration and voting.
  What is important for this Parliament to realise is that British subjecthood was not a shadow. There were definite and concrete ties which gave substance to the statement of Lord Palmerston, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—Civis Britannicus sum. The first was—and this is most important—that constitutional law is not an abstraction to be bandied about but an important matter which affects the intimate lives of the people. It is that all citizens of different parts of the Empire, up to this Bill becoming law, had the right to intermarry without problems of losing or changing nationality or complications as to the marriage of their children. Secondly, it helped that immense body of unofficial or all-Commonwealth associations confined to British subjects in so many different aspects of life, and, in the official sphere; and, this is my third point, it freed official and military collaboration from many legal and administrative difficulties. Fourthly, do not let us forget that it provided an open career in the public service and professions of the United Kingdom for people of the Commonwealth just as widely as for the people at home. Lastly, but I do not think least, it assisted our diplomatic and consular system abroad to protect British subjects and British protected persons in the absence of representatives of their own locality.
  I do not think that any one will say that any of these reasons are lawyers' abstractions and certainly some of them

  403
  are not. All are matters connected with the true rights of men and women, and let us say, without any boastfulness but with modest pride, that we had much to offer the people of the Dominions, and more to people of the racially distinct and smaller countries of the Commonwealth, because, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this, we were proud in this country that we imposed no colour bar restrictions, making it difficult for them when they came here. These people, broadly, in so far as the matters I have discussed are concerned, found themselves as privileged in the United Kingdom as the local citizens.
  I want to meet the right hon. Gentleman's argument fairly. He said there were certain defects in this idea of common status, and I agree with him that there were anomalies in the law of naturalisation. There were differences in the law as to the nationality of married women, and, in 1946, there came the Canadian Act, but I do not think there was anything else. I think that is exhaustive of the difficulty as far as my reading on this subject has been able to find.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Imperial Conferences of, 1930 and 1937. The Imperial Conference of 1930 laid down twin principles. First, it said:
  "It is for each member of the Commonwealth to define for itself its own nationals, but so far as possible, those persons should be persons possessing the common status. …"
  The second principle was:
  "The possession of the common status in virtue of the law for the time being in force in any part of the Commonwealth should carry with it the recognition of that status by the law of every other part of the Commonwealth."
  Those were the resolutions of 1930. The 1937 Conference approached the problem, gave more precise attention to it and passed this resolution:
  "It is for each member of the British Commonwealth to decide which persons have with it that definite connection which would enable it to recognise them as members of its community, It is desirable, however, to secure as far as possible uniformity in principle in the determination by each member of the Commonwealth of the persons being British subjects to be regarded as members of its community."
  Thus there was no doubt that the basic and original nationality was still assumed to be a British subjecthood. Local
  404
  nationalities were derivative and secondary. That was the position, and the Canadian Act was passed, in accordance with these principles and in accordance with our recognition. The Canadian Parliament is perfectly entitled to attach all the conditions it likes to those whom it specially regards and desires to be considered as members of its community. But, having only the Canadian Act before him, the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Clause for details of which an hon. Friend of mine asked, and it did four things. It first of all assumed a citizenship of each of the nine Dominions mentioned in Subsection (3). Secondly, it created a citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies to cover the remaining area of the Empire, and, thirdly, it equated the sum of these citizenships with the body of British subjects. Fourthly, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, it made the term "British subject" interchangeable with "Commonwealth citizen."
  I do not think that is a blemish. In one way it gives me a purely verbal point, as the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate, because he always appreciates the importance of words—namely, that as the state of the Bill which I am defending includes "subject" in both the genus and the species, so the state which he is defending includes "citizen" in both the genus and the species. In spite of all the other points which we can throw at each other, we cannot throw tidiness with very great effect. I think he will agree with me that that is the effect of the Clause.
  What I am worried about is that the assumption behind the principles which I have quoted from the Imperial Conferences was that British subjecthood was the basic nationality, though members of the Commonwealth could define their own nationals or citizens, confining them "so far as possible" to British subjects, and British subjects within any member country had the real privilege that their basic British nationality, the common status, would be recognised "by law" throughout the Commonwealth.
  The right hon. Gentleman's Clause which he is commending to this House makes citizens of any member State of the Commonwealth a privileged class of British subjects. He reverses the position. Hitherto, the operative nationality

  405
  has been British. Henceforth the operative nationality in each country will be its own local citizenship. In the United Kingdom, more than anywhere else, there would be no point in passing such a Measure unless—and I ask the House to appreciate this—this new category of the right hon. Gentleman, "citizens," were to have privileges and duties more extensive than other classes of British subjects—that is, unless the old idea of the common status and our proud boast of the open door in this country to people from all the Colonies were to be destroyed.
  It does not stop there. The anomalies under this form of the Bill are manifest and many. Under Clause 13 of the Bill as introduced, provision is made for "British subjects without citizenship." This phrase would have been completely obnoxious to the old system which claimed and stood for the rights of British subjects everywhere. Under the provisions of the Bill as introduced, a person excluded from citizenship of a Dominion ceased to be a British subject under the law of that Dominion. Let me give an example. Suppose that South Africa were to exclude Indians from their citizenship, or, to take another example, suppose that in Ceylon they were to exclude incoming Tamils or something of that kind. Under the Bill as introduced, they would not only lose their right of franchise in that Dominion, but they would lose the status of a British subject in that Dominion. It is quite true that the Bill contains a Clause allowing them into another citizenship, but in that Dominion by the law of the Dominion, they would not be regarded as British subjects.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shavvcross): Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that we have any power to alter the law of that Dominion in that respect?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Up to now, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the plan has been to secure recognition of British subjecthood by all the Dominions, whatever they might do in regard to citizenship. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the point—because he must have considered it—that if under the form of the Bill as it was introduced, the first gateway—to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—is closed upon the Indians in South Africa, and they do not become
  406
  citizens of South Africa, then they do not pass through the gateway into British subjecthood, and they would not be recognised as British subjects in South Africa.
  The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman really understood the point that I was putting to him. I asked him if he was suggesting that this Parliament would have any power to override a statute of the South African Parliament if that Parliament did take the course which he indicates of excluding Indians from the citizenship of South Africa. What we have done by this Bill is to open a fresh door to such persons to acquire British nationality.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting the horse a long way after the cart. If he will look at the estimable volume which I see beside him, and which I gather is the same one which is beside me, Mr. Mervyn Johns' book on British Nationality, he will get the point quite clear. I think it is somewhere about page 230 or thereabouts, which probably he has already looked at.
  The position is that up to now, as I think I have convinced the House by my arguments, the basic nationality and the operative nationality was British subject-hood and, therefore, it did not matter what one put on top in order to establish a local citizenhood; that British subject-hood and nationality remained because it was based on an allegiance to the Crown in accordance with the declaratory provision in Section 1 of the Act of 1914. The point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put to me is, therefore, completely irrelevant, because that is unchanged so long as it depends on subjecthood and allegiance—unchanged by the local legislation with which—I entirely agree with him; it is an elementary point—we cannot interfere. That is the fallacy, and it is the disregard of the resolutions of the Imperial Conferences of 1930 and 1937 and their true meaning, which is implicit in the interruption of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which we on this side are deploring in the Bill.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I be quite clear on this? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that no

  407
  Parliament in any Dominion should have any power to say what is British subject-hood as regards the citizens of that Dominion?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I may explain once again—because I am anxious to take with me those who are considering the matter carefully—what I am asking for is the maintenance of the old basis of subjecthood, based on allegiance. I say that if one keeps that conception then, on top of it, one can have any rules and regulations one likes for localities and that is exactly the principle expressed in the two resolutions I read from the Imperial Conference of 1930 and the one resolution I read from that of 1937. That is the difference of approach between us.
  Dr. Morgan rose—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am anxious to get on, but I will willingly give way to the hon. Member. I am conscious that this is an intricate subject which takes a little time. If he will forgive me, so that I do not need to give way, I shall be grateful, but if he thinks the point is urgent he has only to rise and I will give way.
  Dr. Morgan: It is important. The British citizen in, say, the West Indies has the right to have his citizenship observed in the Dominions, yet if he goes to Australia he will be excluded in Australia by the right of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament to decide that he is not to have the privilege in that Commonwealth.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a very difficult point. May I make the distinction once again? I am dealing with the status of a British subject. That comes from birth within the allegiance, but since the Statute of Westminster one cannot deny to the Dominions the right to fix on top of that the rules of immigration, franchise and the like, but that does not affect the basic point that the man remains a British subject.
  The Attorney-General rose—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, but I have had four interruptions already and I have already given way to him.
  Mr. Ede: I had at least as many interruptions, but I gave way every time.
  Dr. Morgan: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his concession to me.
  The Attorney-General: I do not want to prolong what is probably a Committee point, or will become a Committee point, but it is a matter of fundamental importance in the relationship between this country and the other Commonwealth countries. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say explicitly whether he is really doubting that the Parliament of South Africa, or the Parliament of Australia, or of Canada, can by their own legislation say that such and such a person—it may be an Indian or it may be somebody, an alien, who has married one of their nationals—is not, in those countries, to be a British subject under the existing law?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Of course, as their right under the Statute of Westminster, they could do that. Of course they could. They could pass a law just as this House could pass a law, but what I am objecting to is the reasoning of the Attorney-General, that because other Dominions could pass such a law, this House must pass such a law. It is neither good sense nor has it any logical sequence.
  I hope I have exhausted the interruptions to my enumeration of the anomalies, and I congratulate those who interrupted me on choosing such a tactical, if not strategical, moment for interruptions. I only hope the House will bear with me a little longer.
  Perhaps I may just point out two anomalies in the Bill as it is commended by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In dealing with registration provisions the Bill provides that a citizen of the Dominions may be registered if he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and has been so resident for 12 months, or if he is in the Crown service under the United Kingdom Government. As the Home Secretary told us, it provides for the registration of women from the Dominions who marry United Kingdom citizens. Let us look at how that works. A Canadian would have to wait 12 months to take up a job which was open to citizens of Britain and the Colonies. The friend of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan)—he mentioned

  409
  someone from the West Indies—need not wait at all. A Canadian woman who marries a United Kingdom citizen must choose between two citizenships. A Maltese woman who does the same has no change in citizenship at all. That is introducing an unnecessary complexity and trouble, and the result can be broadly put that these provisions in the Bill subtract from the benefits of Dominion citizens and add benefits to nobody at all.
  It might be that these new anomalies would be excused if they eradicated the old anomaly. This old anomaly is a point which became apparent through—if I am not being disrespectful—what I might term the cross-talk of a few moments ago, that each self-governing member of the Commonwealth will legislate for its own citizenship and provide for the naturalisation of aliens, the nationality of married women and similar matters in its own terms, and its own citizenship will automatically confer British subjecthood, according to the Bill as the Government want it.
  Therefore, the paradox of the common status and the different methods of acquiring it remains as paradoxical as ever, because it is for the different parts to fix the size and the pillars and the texture of the gateway and, therefore, we shall have, just the same as we have at the present time, these different methods of obtaining the common status. Really, the only plea—and this is the tragic part of this Bill—for instituting this approach is that the common status is so emasculated by these provisions that it will have much less importance than it had in the past. That is why I condemn the Bill.
  The Home Secretary asked us why we objected to his idea of a citizenship for the United Kingdom and the Colonies and I would like to tell him why as shortly as I can. He will appreciate that it must be only an outline at the moment, because I am conscious that I am taking a long time. Why do we not like that idea? I hope he will recognise that it was imputing an approach to us which we do not make, and which is not necessary in order to hold the view that we do on this part of the Bill. We stand by the present form, that is, "British subject," with the addition of the words "of the United Kingdom and Colonies," because we want to keep the term "British subject" as descriptive of His Majesty's lieges as it was of old, and to have some words which will describe
  410
  those whose nationality is conditioned by the laws emanating from this Parliament. Whatever view the right hon. Gentleman ultimately takes, I want him to consider these points on their merits and reject them, if he will, after considering them in that way.
  I do not think "citizenship" is really an appropriate word for describing the relationship and geographical situation of this country and the Colonies. Citizenship essentially means the common enjoyment of civic rights and the acceptance of civic responsibilities. When it is chosen by Canada—as she is entitled to choose; and we have no objection to her choosing—it is applicable to something like Canada, which is a geographical entity, but it is inapplicable to the immense variety of people, with the immense varieties of status of forms of Government, and civic rights and responsibilities, which are included in the group which the Home Secretary has chosen for them. The right hon. Gentleman has only to consider the great number of protected persons in various African Colonies, through treaties which have, no doubt been brought to his attention, to realise what I mean. It is unreal to use a term like that to describe a geographical and political layout.
  I come to my next point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think it too subtle. We are not proceeding, and my information is that it would not be popular in the Colonies if we did, on the approach of assimilation. The Attorney-General will know from his experience of cases in the Privy Council that we go a long distance towards preserving local religious or cultural matters whether we agree with them on these bases or not; we accept that they are allowed to continue. Our method of dealing with the Colonies has not been to try to assimilate terms. One of the striking examples is Malta, where we have a small Colony which has been given great opportunities for its own development. That is what our trusteeship has developed along the line of decentralisation and improvement of the Colonies, in each case at the end of the particular string which attaches them to Whitehall.
  I suggest that whereas "subject" suggests that sort of relationship, "citizenship" does not, and might well be taken as being thought to be suggesting a tendency towards assimilation which would

  411
  not be popular in many of our colonies today. I put this fundamental point to the right hon. Gentleman, and I make no apology for its stark and naked character; to a great number of the people of our Colonies, especially our African Colonies, the allegiance is not to a political system; it is to the King in person. Many colonial troops who fought in the war fought for the King. That is not imagination on my part; I have consulted people at all levels, from ex-Colonial Secretaries and Governors to those at a lower level who have been in personal contact with colonial peoples.
  The next reason why we object to "citizenship" is one which I have already developed vis-a-vis Dominion citizens—that we deprecate any tendency to differentiate between different types of British subjects in the United Kingdom. We feel that when they come to the United Kingdom there ought to be an open door and a reception for every type. If we create a distinctive citizenship for Britain and the Colonies, inevitably such differentiation will creep in. We must maintain our great metropolitan tradition of hospitality to everyone from every part of our Empire. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the position of the Dominions, and I will say only this: there is no suggestion on this side of the House that the Dominions cannot, or should not, take any legislative action they like, but I cannot think of any further example than that given by the right hon. Gentleman of any unilateral enlargement of British subjecthood. Broadly, up to now the changes in British subjecthood have kept step between the different parts of the Empire, and legislation against particular classes of their own nationals has been by discriminating legislation and not by changing the status of any particular inhabitant.
  I will leave that point rather quickly, because I want to say a word or two about the difficult position of Eire, and why we maintain that the Bill in its altered form is preferable to that which the Home Secretary supports. The effect of the Bill in its original form is to recognise, for the first time, that citizens of Eire are not in the allegiance of His Majesty, and are not British subjects. The law of this country—and the Attorney-General will correct me if there has been any recent decision which I have
  412
  been unable to find—remains as it was in the case of Murray v. Parker, namely, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have never recognised the termination of Eire's allegiance to the Crown.
  It is only because His Majesty's Government's present advisers have thought it necessary to introduce the Bill in this form that it becomes necessary either to include or exclude Eire from Clause 1, and to define a relationship hitherto happily left undefined. The effect of the Bill, by not including Eire in Clause 1, and making specific provision for it, is that the secession of Eire has thus been explicitly recognised for the first time. Members of this House, in doing this, must consider, in their hearts and conscience, the effect on the people of Eire, and especially on those who, before and after 1922, have been proud of the fact that they have recognised and believed themselves to be loyal subjects of the King.
  I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the wording of the Eire Act of 1935. He will remember the point was made by his noble colleague in another place, when expressing the Government's policy, that that Act says only that a man will lose Eire citizenship if he acquires the nationality of another country. I am arguing, as his noble Friend argued in a slightly different context, that one must take that word strictly and differentiate between the change denoted by the word "become" and the continuance of the present position for which I am standing today.
  We say, just as the right hon. Gentleman said in his moving peroration—I mean that, his moving peroration—that it is a great thing that the structure of the British Commonwealth and Empire should have no sealed pattern but should constantly alter and evolve to meet changing needs. So this particular aspect should have been left elastic and undefined. I believe that it is through that ability to improve through change that our Commonwealth and Empire has lasted while other similar institutions have gone with Nineveh and Tyre. I believe that this is a disastrous change, when we have a modus vivendi with Eire that has worked.
  After all, it is 13 years since they passed that provision in their nationality

  413
  law. The general position between the two countries has improved. There is no hostile feeling between the peoples of the two countries today. It has worked perfectly well. We impose our interpretation of the law; they impose theirs; and we have never clashed on it. That is the position that the Government are changing, and changing in a way which is likely to inflict a severe and unnecessary affront on the deepest feelings of a section of the population of Eire who have always stood by us in fair weather and foul, and who are proud to regard themselves as loyal subjects of the King.
  In these circumstances, what have they got to do? These people whom I have just mentioned have to write a personal letter to the right hon. Gentleman and ask that their immemorial rights should be continued. They have to justify their claim—I agree, only their claim—by showing that they come within certain fixed categories. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing personal in this: it is not the writing of a letter to him that is objectionable; it is the having to write to anyone. When these people are in that position and hold those views it is, I suggest, a humiliation which this House of Commons should not impose on them, and certainly should not go out of its way to impose on them at the present time.
  What the status of Eire nationals under this Bill is to be, heaven only knows. By Clause 31 they are not aliens; they are not British subjects. No doubt, the skill of the right hon. Gentleman will find some new term which will please his powers as the reincarnation of the lamented Abbé Siéyes, but certainly will not please the people in Ireland who are caught by this provision. That is why we say, "Why not let alone what has worked perfectly well for 13 years, and let it go on?"
  I am very conscious of the patience of the House, but I think the House will agree that this is a difficult matter, and that unless one tries to give ordered consideration to one's argument one cannot convey it, good or bad though it be; but, in view of the time I have addressed the House, I do not now want to follow the details of the position which the right hon. Gentleman so lucidly explained of married women. He knows as well as I do that the married women's societies have
  414
  been considering this for some time. I feel that this is a point which might be considered before the Committee stage and before we express the views on the various matters put to us. Therefore, I shall not go into that today.
  I now want to say one concluding word. I do not advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading for the converse of the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman, as a "knight of dolorous countenance," advanced in defending the Bill. We approve of the alterations of the Bill. They obliterate the obnoxious United Kingdom and Colonies citizenships. They have refused to cut the painter attaching us to our friends in Eire. They leave the workable position of the last few years. I do say, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his attempt to restore the obnoxious provisions we shall resist, and, if we are defeated, we shall hold ourselves free to take any action at a later stage.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I can be brief as I do not wish to develop an argument so much as to express a feeling which I believe to be widespread concerning this Bill. We are tonight dealing with one of the intangible bonds of the Commonwealth which it is dangerous to disturb, and which should be disturbed only if an overwhelming case is made out. It is not, I think, a matter which need engage party feelings, nor is it a matter which should be treated as a dispute between this House and another place. So far as I can see, the alterations made in another place, though they may be controversial, were made in an attempt to find the best solution for a very difficult constitutional question.
  I am no lawyer, and, although I was fascinated by the display of forensic eloquence between the two right hon. Gentlemen, I hope very much that the Debate will not be treated as a lawyers' holiday, for this is a matter which concerns all persons in the Commonwealth. It appears to me as a layman that the position under the existing law is that the common status throughout the British Commonwealth is the foundation on which local rights are built, and that under the Government's present proposals the local rights are to be the foundation on which the common status will be built.

  415
  If this is so, it is a fundamental change in the constitutional doctrine of the Commonwealth. It may be necessary, and in that case I should feel reluctantly bound to support it; but I shall need a great deal of convincing that it is necessary.
  The only reason I have seen for the introduction of these proposals is that Canada has already passed a similar Act. I think the utmost effort should be made to preserve the existing position, but I am prepared to concede that the other Dominions may follow the example of Canada. If Sir Alexander Maxwell, to whom a deserved tribute was paid, did not succeed in getting the old position retained, I have no confidence that I should have succeeded. I will concede that other Dominions may, in the course of time, follow Canada in taking such a step, although I should do the utmost myself to persuade them otherwise. Is that any reason why we should follow, and be the first to follow, the Canadian example? It may be argued that if we retain the existing law we should give to citizens of the Dominions certain rights which we should not ourselves receive in those Dominions. I see no objection. We are the Mother Country of this great Commonwealth, and it is quite common for mothers to give to their children benefits which they do not themselves receive.
  It may be argued—it has been argued by my right hon. Friend—that such a position would lead to a great deal of anomalies. I am not frightened about that possibility, because the British Commonwealth is full of anomalies. It is, indeed, the great anomaly in politics, and yet it works in practice. I should be willing to put up with all the anomalies that exist if we could retain, even though some of the Dominions may not do so, this conception of a common status which exists at the present time. In any case, my right hon. Friend's proposals do not leave us without anomalies. His proposals have this anomaly, that a citizen of one of our Colonies will be in this country in a more favoured position than a citizen of the Dominions. It would ill-become me, with my late connection with the Colonies, to complain, but I think that it is certainly anomalous that one of the West Indians referred to by another
  416
  of my hon. Friends should be in a more favourable position in this country than someone who comes here from Australia or New Zealand.
  I do not wish to develop that argument, but simply to express my regret that my right hon. Friend should have felt compelled to introduce such a Measure to the House. I hope that it will be debated here and in Committee, not as an issue between this House and another place, or as a party matter, but as a constitutional question to which we all ought to make the best contribution that we can.
  5.32 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), who has had recent and important experience of the Empire, has made a speech which, I think, we on these benches find most encouraging; if other hon. Members on the other side follow suit, now and in the Committee stage of this Bill, we shall develop pressure on the Government, and, I hope, induce them to modify the Bill very substantially. I have no particular qualifications to address the House this afternoon. I am no authority on the law of nationality nor, indeed, do I propose to dilate on the principles of the British Constitution. I have, however, not long since returned from a tour of the world which took me to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and, therefore, I can give some impression of the feelings of our brothers and sisters in the Dominions about the home country and its way and aims.
  I re-read not long ago that famous work of Walter Bagehot, where he draws attention to the two great parts of the British Constitution—what he calls the dignified part: the Throne, the Monarch, subject-hood, and allegiance; and what he calls the efficient part: the Government, the Executive, the power of the Civil Service. I think that in this Bill there is evidence that, in some respects, we are allowing ourselves to do a thing which Bagehot said should never be done. That was to allow the executive part of the Constitution to have undue weight. What, after all, brings the thoughts and minds of our fellow subjects throughout the world to centre upon England? It is the concept of the Crown, it is allegiance to the Throne, that dignified force in our constitution which enlists and equips the Army

  417
  of our people for the battle of life, a battle which, as Bagehot puts it, later passes into the hands of the executive, for prosecution and direction. I fear that in this Bill we may be reducing the attachment of the people of the Commonwealth and Empire to the Throne, making them less willing to be enlisted and joined in the battle of the Commonwealth, the battle of ideas and purposes, if we can so describe it.
  I was most struck while I was in those distant parts by the thrill and pleasure which the thought of British subjecthood created in the mind of all our people out there—the fascination of the ceremony of the Royal Wedding, the feeling of warm sentiment which they had towards the Throne and the Monarch, the respect for our institutions, the desire for emulation. They were proud to be British subjects. The Home Secretary this afternoon discoursed extensively on British subject-hood. He sought to put it in terms of British citizenship, but I do not think that there is any quarrel between us. What he encountered in the Channel Islands was British subjecthood. They said that they had conquered us, but they knew they were subjects and were proud of it. The same is true of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They know that they are subjects of the King and are proud of it. They have never thought of themselves as a downtrodden and wretched people. At any rate after the Statute of Westminster was granted there was no thought of that kind in their minds. They think that they are citizens, subjects, leiges of His Majesty.
  In this Bill there is too much evidence of undue intervention by executive Ministers, of a desire of separate Governments, with their bureaucracies and officials behind them, to interfere with this shadowy and insubstantial link, to drive a wedge in, to settle things nicely, tidy them up and produce a status for the individual people of these countries which, if they could be asked as individuals, they would not wish to see. I do not want to make this a party matter, but at home it is a Socialist Government that is doing this thing. They always have had the idea of a planned purpose for their own country, and it was a Liberal and, in some ways a rather radical Liberal Government in Canada that first asked for it. No doubt if this is pressed
  418
  by the home Government, the Socialist Governments of New Zealand and Australia, will probably fall into line, by same tidying, planning inclinations. I am not convinced, having seen the people of the Commonwealth in the last six months, that they have any desire for the kind of thing this Bill purports to do.
  Mr. Gallacher: What kind of people did the noble Lord see?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not like the phrase "Commonwealth citizen." My right hon. and learned Friend has given the example of the Tamils in Ceylon and the natives in South Africa. This Bill operates against the interests of such persons. They are now British subjects, but if we pass this Bill we destroy their allegiance and their subjecthood; we break that indefinable link; we hand them over to the new Dominion of Ceylon and the new and more radical Government in the Dominion of South Africa, who can impose upon them some status of their own which deprives them of equal rights against our own citizens. Either Tamils or natives in South Africa might come to this country at some stage and find themselves at a disadvantage as regards right of entry to the United Kingdom compared with those who are now resident in the Colonies.
  Then, again, I think this Bill might operate against the interests of the Dominions themselves. I am not happy about the phrase which is used throughout, the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies." I regretted also to see this phrase reintroduced in another place by my noble Friends, if I may so refer to them. At various times there have been suggested schemes to give the Dominions a share in the management of Colonies in their own geographical areas. Lord Altrincham, who moved this Amendment in another place, has expressed himself in that sense. It might well be the case that Australia and New Zealand would wish to take—perhaps suzerainty is too crude a word—exercise some supervision over Fiji, or another of His Majesty's Colonies in the Far East. Under this Bill the citizens of Fiji remain British subjects, while by that time the citizens of Australia and New Zealand might have some other status and title. Are we then to say that, because of this Bill, the citizens of a Colony which was itself under the supervision of a great British

  419
  Dominion had a higher nationality than the people of that Dominion itself? The same thing might work out to the general disadvantage in General Smuts's plan of South Africa exercising greater authority over the Colonies in Africa—British subjects in Nigeria and Northern Rhodesia would then be preferred above the English and other white races in South Africa.
  Least of all am I an authority upon the status of alien women marrying British subjects, or, for that matter, British women marrying aliens, but I should like to say shortly to the House that I do not welcome at all the provisions of this Bill in that regard. So far as concerns alien women marrying British subjects, until 1844 an alien woman marrying a British subject remained an alien; but by the Naturalisation Act, 1844, she obtained British subjecthood automatically upon marriage. And that is the existing law today. We are now going to change it, so that the Home Secretary himself has the right of arbitrating whether the marriage is genuine or not, and whether the wife a British subject has seen fit to marry is, in his opinion, fit to be a British subject. I should have thought that marriage ought, in itself, to confer British status. It is a bad principle to legislate for bad cases. Here we have a Government which shows increasing signs of not wishing to trust the people, and I should have thought it was far preferable to leave the law as it stands, expecting an Englishman in marrying a woman to transfer his British status to her automatically, without some political Minister intervening and saying whether or not that is a good thing.
  The same thing is true, in my view, of British women marrying aliens. Until 1870 British women who married aliens remained British subjects, but by the Act of 1870 a married woman is deemed a subject of the State of which her husband is, for the time being, a subject. And that is the law at the present time. This Bill reverts to the common law before 1870 by providing that a British woman marrying an alien shall retain her nationality until she renounces it. That, surely, introduces very undesirable complications in the event that war were impending between us and a foreign Power; and I should have thought that the retrospective action given to this
  420
  provision by Clause 13 is of very doubtful advisability, since under it a woman married, say, 20 years ago to a national of some country, with whom we are not at present particularly friendly, becomes automatically, in the eyes of the British law, a British subject without her knowledge or consent. That might have very undesirable implications in any action that might be taken against her by those in power in that country should a dangerous or serious situation arise between the respective Powers.
  Why do we have to have this Bill now? We have had a long Session, with a big programme of legislation, and right at the end of the Session the Government introduces a new Bill. Why do we have to have it, not after a series of Conferences, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but prior to a Conference? Would it not be infinitely better to wait just a few months, until the Prime Ministers of the Dominions have assembed here and discussed this? I should like to ask the Attorney-General, if he would be good enough to reply, whether it is not the case that this Bill was framed and introduced before the Imperial Conference was settled upon. If that is so, what is his view about the possibility of deferring this Bill, having regard to the fact that it has now been found possible to convene this very important Imperial Conference, which the majority of the Dominion Prime Ministers will attend?
  Secondly, I ask: who wants this Bill? I have read through the White Paper. My right hon. and learned Friend has already referred to paragraph 6. Paragraphs 5 and 7 both continue the same line of thought which he brought out. Paragraph 5 says:
  "It appeared to the United Kingdom Government that the question ought to be considered whether the citizenship principle introduced by the Canadian Act should be extended by agreement."
  Again:
  "At the Conference agreement was reached as to a general scheme which the representatives of each country were prepared … to submit to their respective governments for consideration."
  The whole tenor of this White Paper is that something might be done at some future stage. There is no demand, as far as I can see, for this to be done now. The chief authorship of this Bill seems

  421
  to reside in a little collection of civil servants who have done some work upon it in recent months.
  Mr. Ede: That is quite wrong. The civil servants of this country and of the Commonwealth were instructed to hold these conferences by the meeting of Prime Ministers. The responsibility for this Bill being prepared and submitted at this time rests with His Majesty's Government in concert with the meeting of Prime Ministers.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Prime Ministers met in 1946, and since then there have been considerable changes in the Commonwealth and in the status of the Member Governments concerned. I stick to my point, that since then there has been consultation in the Civil Services of these countries about this Bill, and that it has been produced largely as a result of their deliberations. I am not at all happy about the way civil servants increasingly direct the course of our affairs. Working in secret, these mute, inglorious persons are becoming masters of our society. It is for the high and important political figures of the great Dominions and of the United Kingdom themselves to deliberate in solemn conclave and pronounce upon the future status of British subjects, and then some months after, when the Press has been properly prepared, we could come to consider the matter in this House by Bill.
  No one wants this Bill except, so far as I can see, the Liberal Government of Canada, basing their support mainly on the Eastern Provinces. No doubt the C.C.F. party are also glad to see it. As for the Conservatives in Canada, I doubt whether they have any opinion, and if they have it is entirely the other way. There has been no demand for this Billl in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, nor as far as I know from India or Pakistan. Almost the entire body of Peers are against the Bill, including such important and experienced Peers as Lord Salisbury, Lord Simon and Lord Altrincham.
  Mr. Ede: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to allude to the Debate—?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not quoting what was said.
  Mr. Ede: —to allude to the Debate which took place in another place and indicate which of the noble Lords took a certain line on this Bill?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is a matter which is certainly not in Order.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There are a number of other authorities who have given a great deal of attention to the constitutional and nationality laws who are against the Bill. I have not seen a single article in the Press or in any publication in favour of this Bill. The reverse is true. There is an important article in the "Round Table," written by Mr. Hodson, which puts the best case I have seen against the Bill; I hope Members will read it before the concluding stages. I have no more to add, except to express the hope that if it be the case that we shall not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, we shall amend the Bill in an important sense in Committee, and that if the Government reject the Amendments we introduce and insist on introducing their own Amendments which were rejected by another place, we shall divide against the Bill on Third Reading. I am convinced that our view will be upheld not merely by Governments in the Dominions, but by the millions of British subjects throughout the world, with their warm feelings of attachment and regard to our Sovereign and our Constitution.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I welcome this Bill, except for the Amendments which have been inserted and will, I hope, be taken out. I particularly welcome what it is doing about the nationality of women. I regret that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) takes such a disingenuous view about British men and women. He apparently thinks that no British man is capable of marrying an alien woman who is not entirely fitted to become a British citizen. On the other hand, he apparently believes that no British woman who marries an alien can possibly be worthy of remaining a British citizen. There are many millions of people, not only in this country but in other countries, who entirely disagree with him. I am sorry to wreck his illusions, but I think it is time that we were a little realistic about the matter.

  423
  This Bill is long overdue, and is particularly overdue on the question of married women. Some very fine British women have had some very bitter pills to swallow, especially during the war, because before the war they were married to aliens and had become aliens through marriage which made them unable to carry on useful work in this country in helping to win the war. It made them even more bitter to see alien women, some of whom were not at all desirable, helpful or loyal, automatically becoming British citizens simply because they happened to be married to British men. It is also an excellent thing it has been decided that alien women shall not automatically become British on marriage, but that they must apply for British citizenship and will then, if they are fitted and are suitable to become British citizens, be allowed to do so.
  But there is another side about which I am rather puzzled. I cannot understand for the life of me why an alien man on becoming a British citizen has to take the oath of allegiance but an alien woman does not. It seems obvious to me that every alien adult who becomes a British subject ought to have to take the oath of allegiance. It is just as important for a woman as for a man. I can understand the case being made out, although I should not agree with it, that no one should take the oath of allegiance. It could be argued that if an alien becomes a British subject for nefarious purposes and does not intend to be loyal, a dozen oaths of allegiance will not make him into a loyal subject; but that argument is not put forward by the Government, because they argue that all alien men becoming British citizens should take the oath of allegiance.
  Surely, then, if that is true, it is equally important that all alien women should take the oath of allegiance. We can be no more sure of their loyality, because of their marriage to a man who has taken the oath of allegiance, than we can be of the loyalty of anyone else. It seems very important to me that there should be equality in this matter, all the more so because it can be argued that if a woman remains with her husband who has become a loyal British subject she will remain loyal; but she will not necessarily remain with her husband. What happens
  424
  if she leaves her husband and joins up with disloyal and undesirable people? The woman who has left her husband and has become a British citizen without having taken any oath of allegiance may possibly be consorting with some very questionable people from the point of view of loyalty to the country, and if the oath of allegiance has any value surely she should have taken it. I would therefore urge the Government to add to the Amendments which they are to make this small additional one—that any adult who becomes a British subject can only do so on condition that he or she takes the oath of allegiance. With that I think we shall have a long overdue and welcome change which will gladden the hearts of many people, especially a large number of fine and desirable women who have suffered grievously under the fact that they were unable to remain British subjects.
  6.1 p.m.
  Brigadier Peto: I am glad to follow the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) as I take much the same view as she does. I do not regard this Bill in quite the same light as does my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I find this Bill a most complicated and difficult Measure, mainly, I think, because the Empire and Commonwealth have been built in the past with no foundation or basis other than that of equality and freedom. It is, therefore, to my mind made unduly complicated if one tries to define the status of a British national. I find it particularly difficult in the cases which have already been cited of the Canadian Act of 1945 and of the way in which this Bill proposes to deal with the citizens of Eire.
  My main interest in this Bill which prompted me to rise to address the House concerns those women mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon. I was in Prague at the end of last September and I found there many British women who during the war had married Czech officers and men and had lost their British nationality. I remember one particular instance of a British born woman, the daughter of a Dorset farmer, who was extremely exercised in her mind as to how she would get out of that country in the event of a Communist putsch. She was quite convinced that it was coming and

  425
  she did not know how she and the other women, approximately 1,000, in Czechoslovakia who had lost their British nationality would achieve the sanctuary of Great Britain.
  There is also in my constituency a constituent who has written saying that her daughter married a German at the end of the war and she, of course, had lost her British nationality. Therefore, I very much welcome that part of the Bill which makes provision for restoring British nationality to those British-born women who have lost it, and which will enable those women who in future marry aliens to retain their British nationality.
  There is a question I would like to ask. I dare say it is easy to answer, but it has puzzled me. I refer to the question of children, under Clause 6. What is the position of children of a British-born woman who is married to an alien in this country? Can those children become British nationals before they are 21 years of age? Perhaps the Attorney-General could, in his reply, clarify that point. It is one which has exercised the minds of many people. It is not particularly clear in the Bill, nor was it made clear by the Lord Chancellor in another place.
  In conclusion, I would again welcome that part of this Bill which deals with the status and nationality of British women who are married to aliens. I also agree with what the hon. Lady said with regard to the refusal of British nationality to those alien women who have married British subjects. It should be left to the Home Secretary to decide whether or not they shall be accepted by this country as British nationals. This would have been a considerably simpler and a much better Bill, and it would certainly have been more acceptable to me, if the question of citizenship were not to be given this new meaning and definition with a view to attempting to settle who is or who is not a British subject. In my opinion, the introduction of this vexed question of citizenship is what has made this Bill so complicated and so difficult to understand in its terms, and what has given rise to the controversy which there is on the Bill between parties. I entirely agree with those who hold the view that this Bill had much better be considered
  426
  after the Conference of Empire and Commonwealth Prime Ministers, rather than now before that Conference takes place.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Mackay: I do not propose to deal with the Clauses relating to Eire and married women. I wish to look at the problem of British nationality, which is exceedingly important, and in a personal sense the more important because, as a result of this Bill, I shall now have to register, whereas up to the present time I should not, on coming from a Dominion to this country, have had to register.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will not have to do so. He could become a Member of this House without doing so.
  Mr. Mackay: I appreciate the fine distinction, but the point I am raising is that 10 years ago, one could come to this country and take one's part as a citizen of this country without having to perform an overt act. Now someone coming from a Dominion may have to perform an overt act if he or she wishes to take his or her part as a United Kingdom citizen in this country.
  The points with which I wish to deal are a general one and a specific one. The general one is one which hon. Members in this House and the people in this country must appreciate much better than they do at present. The technique of the Imperial Conference as a means of organising the Commonwealth and Empire has broken down. I am not saying that that is good or bad. I think it is bad but it is part of the general problem of growth. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) made quite a lot of this point in the early part of his speech. He even suggested that His Majesty's Government have not done all they might have done in the last few years to secure an Imperial Conference such as we used to have in the old days. That is a most unfair criticism. It is founded upon a lack of knowledge and small-mindedness. The last Imperial Conference took place in 1927. In those ten years there was a Labour Government for two and a half years, a Coalition Government for four to five years and a Conservative Government for three years, and if there is any blame, it lies on other

  427
  shoulders. During the period of the war, which was obviously the right time to have an Imperial Conference and when the need was greater than at any other time—greater than it is now—it was thought impracticable to have it.
  It was considered impracticable for a number of reasons. In the first place, conditions operating in some Diminions differ from those operating here. The very geographical situation of the Commonwealth as a whole makes the thing very difficult. A time that suits New Zealand does not suit Canada and when it suits Canada it does not suit Australia. With the Dominions situated as they are, it is an exceedingly difficult problem to get together the responsible Ministers, and we can only have Prime Ministers at an Imperial Conference. It is exceedingly difficult to have an Imperial Conference of this kind at which they can all be present at the same time. Hon. Members will realise that when an Imperial Conference takes place this year all the Prime Ministers will not be present. The Prime Minister of Australia is arriving today or tomorrow, and he will not be here when other Prime Ministers are here in the later part of the year. This is a practical problem, because they are all democracies.
  We have heard a lot about the organic growth of the Commonwealth of Nations, and growth involves change, among other things. It may also involve decay, but it certainly involves change, and the fact remains that the Dominions, as such, and their Prime Ministers, as such, are not, as interested in an Imperial Conference as they were in the days before the war of 1914–18. They wish to settle their problems themselves. They are nothing like as interested. We have only to look at the records of Imperial Conferences prior to 1931 and then at the records from 1931 to 1937, and then at what took place during and after the war, when at any rate some of the Dominion Prime Ministers were here, to see their complete inability to agree. The problems of New Zealand are different from those of Australia. The problems of Australia are different from those which concern Canada, and the problems concerning Canada are different from those of Australia. New Zealand's problems are different from those of Great Britain.
  428
  I do not raise this point by way of criticism, or because I want to see the Commonwealth and Empire coming to an end, but because it is essential, if we are to deal with the problem underlying this Bill, that we should understand and have a correct picture of the background. The background of the British Commonwealth and the relationship of the Dominions to one another has changed enormously in the last few years. I will give one simple illustration of many, and that is the defensive act between Canada and the United States. Canada was willing to create a new defence policy, set up a new Defence Board, and take overt action with regard to the United States, in association with the United States, which she would never do with Great Britain. That is not a criticism of the Canadians. It is a recognition of their geographical position. It is also a recognition of the limits of Dominions association at a period in their history, or in their life, when they have achieved a certain amount of independence, both politically and economically.
  I ask hon. Members to realise the changing position of Canada. I have spent the greater part of my life in four Dominions. I have mixed with a lot of people from the Dominions and I know the way those people view this problem. It is because of these changes that the Imperial Conference method has broken down, and we have to devise some new method. We have had suggestions in the last few years and a number of different proposals, none of which has achieved acceptance or recognition by the other members of the Commonwealth. That is why the system of Imperial Conference, as a whole, has broken down.
  I was rather amazed by one fact which I hope will be dealt with by whoever is to reply for the Government. After the last Imperial Conference and after the discussion which took place in regard to this Bill, a committee of experts met in February of last year. Why is it that the report that went back to each of the Dominions, and, I assume, to the United Kingdom as well, as being a Dominion in that sense, has not been published as a White Paper so that we could have had an opportunity, in the period between February, 1947, and the Debate today, to discuss and consider it? It may be that the report is similar to

  429
  the White Paper published in February this year. I do not know, but I think the Government should tell us. If we are to give up the Imperial Conference method and have a committee of experts, which, in effect, is what we did have, and the experts make a report which has gone to the Dominions for their consideration so that a Bill could be passed at a future time, surely that report should be available for consideration before the Bill comes before the House.
  The noble Lord raised a question in the course of the Home Secretary's speech when my right hon. Friend cited the Canadian Act as something which made action necessary, and asked whether anything else had been done before. The answer is that many things have been done before. Quite frankly, a coach and horses has been driven through the conception of British nationality since the Nationality Act was passed in 1914. One important example is that both the Australian and New Zealand Governments have amended the British Nationality Act to provide, in effect, that if an Australian or a New Zealander marries an alien, and thereby loses his or her British nationality, he or she can acquire Australian or New Zealand nationality or citizenship at once and thereupon probably—I do not know, it is a legal matter—re-acquire his or her British nationality.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: The hon. Member is a little in error. Australians or New Zealanders who marry aliens lose their British nationality, but retain in Australia or New Zealand all the rights and obligations of citizenship.
  Mr. Mackay: If I put the thing any higher than that, I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman has put it exactly as high as it should be put. I was arguing that the whole basis of British nationality was the common suzerainty of the King. In order to make it of any value, that must be the same in every part of the Empire. But we find that we are starting to depart from this, because a United Kingdom subject living in Great Britain who marries an alien, loses her British nationality and rights, which an Australian in Australia maintains, because of the Australian Act which is a departure from the British Nationality Act. So, to that extent, the Dominions, before Canada did it, were already starting to break away
  430
  from the common conception. I have read the article in "The Round Table," and so obviously has the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, since he read from it from time to time with great skill. That article deals with this matter in a very good way.
  At first I thought this was a mistaken Measure and I thought of voting against the Bill, but when we think it out and see the problem with which the Government are faced today, in view of the discussions which have taken place with the Dominions and in view of the demands which the Dominions are making to have their own nationality, we must realise that some solution has to be found to the problem. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) put the matter very shortly when he said that in the old days there was a common nationality and a common basis and then there was a second citizenship for the Australians, the New Zealanders or the Canadians. Now we are going to create, first of all, eight or nine citizenships and then we shall bring them together and merge them into a secondary nationality, whether it be a British or Commonwealth nationality, whichever version we take.
  Several hundred years ago we had an island which has become Great Britain. The people have gone out to other countries and acquired the right to govern themselves and to look after themselves, and now they want their own nationality. What are we to do? No doubt the Australians and the New Zealanders will follow the Canadians. A big factor in the introduction of this Bill was the problem of dealing with India and Pakistan. We have five or six of the Dominions all wanting to be, not British first, but Canadian or Australian first. I think that the British in England, Scotland and Wales could have said, "Right, you do that if you want to, but we are going to remain British. We have been British for several hundred years. Why should we become United Kingdom people?" That would have been a perfectly fair proposition. If that had been said to the Australians, the New Zealanders and the Canadians, it would have been very difficult for them to object on theoretical grounds and on practical grounds quite impossible.
  We have to decide as a matter of principle whether we stick to the old method

  431
  whereby we have a common nationality and Canadian or Australian citizenship second, or have a new principle. If we decide on a new principle we are confronted with the fact that the component parts of the Commonwealth are desirous of having their own individual nationality. It is not a question which concerns us at all in that way. We are faced with the decision: are we to give effect to this new desire? It is no good hon. Members getting up and saying what a great thing the Commonwealth is because it is flexible and because it is an organic growth and can develop, and that it is a great political experiment, unless we face the consequences of this political experiment, this flexibility and this Bill. We then come to a consideration of the details which should be dealt with in the Committee stage.
  I ask the House to support the Government in the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a very interesting example of the way in which the older Dominion or the older country of the Commonwealth is prepared to face the changed position which has come about and to acquiesce in the wishes of its partners in other parts of the world—there are eight of them—so that they can have the status and nationality they want. They can only have the status and nationality they want if this country is prepared to pass a Measure of this kind which makes them, not British subjects first, but United Kingdom subjects first and British subjects second, in the same way as other parts of the Commonwealth will be.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: First of all on behalf of my colleagues and myself I should like to express our sympathy for the Home Secretary, and confirm what the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said—it may be easier to say in his absence that we realise the undoubted stress under which he was speaking today. Realising that, I should like to congratulate him on the manner in which he dealt with the Bill.
  The Home Secretary had a difficult task. He was presenting a Bill which he said has been "wrecked" in another place. The object of the Bill is entirely praiseworthy but as the Bill now stands,
  432
  the methods by which it seeks to achieve that object are bad. The White Paper presents the only logical and possible approach to the new problem created by the fact that the Dominions are autonomous communities. What was missing from the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was any alternative plan with which to deal with that situation. The first ground of criticism for the suggestion in the White Paper of a dual nationality, a common nationality for all British subjects on the one hand and particular Dominion citizenship on the other, was that it was not made as a result of an Imperial Conference. Let us be quite clear that there is not going to be an Imperial Conference in the old sense. We are making a great mistake if we talk as if there were to be one shortly. As the hon Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) has reminded us, there will be talks with various Prime Ministers, but that cannot be described as a formal Imperial Conference of the pre-war type.
  The Government have gone as far in reaching agreement and in the method of seeking an agreement as it was reasonable to expect. The Home Secretary said there was a discussion between the Dominion Prime Ministers out of which the whole thing sprang, and then, it being a technical matter, it was referred to a meeting of the experts, who were people of authority and standing. I deprecate entirely the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset in his references to civil servants who are called upon to undertake duties of this character. If we are placing heavy duties on our civil servants, it is wrong for us in this House to refer to them as our "mute, inglorious masters" when they have no chance of replying. When we had a working basis between the official representatives of every Government, the matter was naturally referred back to the Governments. I am sure the hon. Member for North-West Hull would agree that it would not be right to publish a report on these discussions until the Dominion Governments themselves had considered the report. As I understand it, this White Paper was presented as soon as the Dominion Governments had considered that report and indicated agreement.

  433
  The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby rather bemoaned the fact that the conception of British subjecthood, the common code of nationality for the Empire as a whole was going, and that all conceptions of Dominion citizenship should be based, first of all, on the conception of an Imperial subjecthood. I do not think that approach fits in with the spirit prevailing in the Dominions which for lack of another term I would call a new nationalism—the feeling that they are self-governing communities. Once we accept that they themselves are the people who know what is good for them and what they want, and not the people in this House, and that they themselves are the masters of their own destinies, then we must throw overboard the old conception of a British subject as something imposed from above, and we must then come to the new conception of the common factor based on Dominion citizenship, the terms of which shall be enunciated by each Dominion.
  This is a matter to be approached with some delicacy, because we must remember the variety of Commonwealth nations—not only the people of Dutch descent in South Africa and the French-Canadians; but we have to be very careful indeed because of the new members of the Commonwealth—the peoples of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. These people do not always feel as the English people do on these matters. I think that I myself, as a member of—I will not say a subject race, but a minority race—can testify to that, though I may say that it is a race which has a longer title to the designation "British subject" than the inhabitants of any other part of this country.
  What I feel was underlying the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset was that, somehow, we in this country know what is good for the people of the Dominions in a manner that they themselves can never know. It is terribly important to avoid giving that impression. I do not want to bring in party considerations, but the point was brought in from above the Gangway that one of the chief objections to this Bill was that it was introduced by a Socialist Government of Britain apparently after a Liberal Gov-
  434
  ernment in Canada had taken the initiative. There is a great difference between Liberalism and Socialism, but they have this in common. They both differ from the Tory conception of Empire, which is to purport to know what other people want better than those peoples know themselves.
  I think that what I have said was exemplified in the speech of the noble Lord. One of his criticisms of the Bill was that it would operate against the interests of the Dominions themselves. Presumably, we can assume that the Dominions themselves know their own interests better than we do. As I see it, once we depart from having one code of British nationality—and we have to depart from it because some Dominions, like Australia and New Zealand, were varying the definition to suit local needs, and then Canada took an entirely novel step and set up a Canadian citizenship—once we depart from the old common code, there was only the path which was set out in the White Paper—that of particular citizenship for each country and a common designation for nationality of the Commonwealth as a whole. But the first Clause of this Bill makes nonsense of that differentiation. It states:
  "Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject."
  In other words, it says that every British subject shall have the status of a British subject.
  The Attorney-General: It means the same thing if you read it backwards.
  Mr. Roberts: It makes nonsense of the approach in the White Paper which is the only sensible one. It is far better to make these changes in advance rather than have them forced upon us.
  As regards dealing with Eire in particular, this Bill is very unfortunate. As it now stands, the effect of its provisions is to force British nationality down the throats of the citizens of Eire whether they want it or not. That is what Clause 1 (4) means. It is no use saying that we had better leave the question of our relations with Eire in the air. That argument is quite inconsistent with the argument

  435
  that we should discuss these matters at an Imperial Conference, because, if we discussed these questions with representatives of the Dominions, obviously, we must discuss them with representatives of Eire. It is far better, I suggest, in this Bill to treat the feelings of people in Eire, which are so sensitive, with the greatest care, and to leave the Bill as it originally stood. Let Eire citizens who want British nationality apply for it. The mere fact that the Eire Government has agreed to that procedure was a considerable advance, but this Bill is a considerable regression from that advance. For those reasons, we on this bench will support the Government Amendments designed to frame the Bill in the way in which it was originally introduced.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Crawley: When this Bill was first published, there was a great deal of misunderstanding about it, one newspaper even going so far as to say that the inhabitants of this country would lose the right to call themselves British subjects. I am not quite sure that the matter has been made very much clearer by this Debate, and, in one of his last sentences, I thought the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said this Bill discriminated against the inhabitants of the Dominions. I think that is what he said, but I think he must have meant something else. As I understand the Bill, there is no British subject today who will lose any rights under it; nor does this Bill make it any easier for any foreigners to become British subjects. It assists certain people who are British subjects now to retain that nationality.
  This achievement is brought about by establishing a common formula by which the fully responsible Members of the Commonwealth decide who are to be their citizens, and decide that these citizens shall be British subjects or citizens of the Colonies. In other words, we have the genus of British subject and the species of the Australian—or other Dominion—citizen, and so on. That seems to me to be a reasonably simple idea and a desirable idea, because at the moment, owing to the position of Eire and Canada, it is not in fact clear, and as my right hon. Friend said, it might become much less clear if certain legislation which is forecast is introduced. It is also desirable because the
  436
  status of British citizen has great value in the world, and also has a different value. It has been mentioned that an Indian citizen at the moment is a British subject and has free entry to this country, though not to South Africa. These matters are of great interest to many Members of the Commonwealth, and it is obviously desirable that they should understand exactly the basis on which their rights are based. That, as I understand it, is what this Bill originally set out to do.
  Although it is a simple idea, it is not an easy idea to put into words, for the reason that words mean such very different things to different people. I looked up the definition of "word" in the Oxford Dictionary, and I find that it says that it is a sound or a combination of sounds to convey an idea or an alternative idea. I suppose that in a community as large and as varied as the British Commonwealth, almost every other word conveys an alternative idea. As the Home Secretary said, to an Englishman the word "British" conjures up various images, perhaps beginning with the colour of red which is so often seen on the map, Trafalgar Square, a game of some sort, and a passport, of which he is very proud, on leaving these shores; but to an Indian who has spent his life fighting against the British Raj and has spent many years in prison, the word "British" means something entirely different. Therefore, the controversy which has already been aroused in the Press, and to some extent in the country, over this Bill is really about words—in particular the words "British subject" and "citizen." The Bill, as it now stands, is a compromise between the various views about those words. In my eyes it is a very poor compromise.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) referred to Clause 1. I entirely agree with what he said about Subsection (1)—that all it really says is that a British subject is a British subject, a true but not a very profound remark. But with Subsections (1) and (2) combined, the Clause seeks to set out the formula which is the basic object of the Bill. That could best be put in to a riddle, "When is a British subject not a British subject?" with the answer, "When he is a Commonwealth citizen." That is what it amounts to, and as it stands it does not make very good sense.

  437
  I hope that when we come to the Committee stage, we shall not only put back some of the words that have been left out but that, if we can find an alternative to the Amendment which was introduced in another place, which would blur the idea of genus and species by introducing the words "Commonwealth citizen"—
  Mr. John Foster: Does the hon. Member realise that Clause 1 says that every person who is a citizen of the Dominions
  "… shall thereby have the status of a British subject,"
  which is the opposite to what he said?
  Mr. Crawley: It throws in the words,
  "or citizen …
  but says,
  "… as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen."
  That qualification adds nothing and prevents any inhabitant of this country from being a citizen of this country. We are "British subjects" according to this Clause—which does not make sense. Then it goes on to say that for "British subject" we may substitute the words "Commonwealth citizen." Obviously these are matters for the attention of the Committee.
  I would like to inquire into some of the ideas behind the dispute over the use of these words, because I think that, as far as this country is concerned, it is mainly the use of the word "citizen" that has given rise to controversy. It shows a profound difference between the outlook of hon. Members opposite, towards particularly the Colonial Empire, and of ourselves. We need not take too seriously the views expressed that in French and American history the word "citizen" has republican associations. No doubt it is unfortunate that countries in the Commonwealth use the British language and that other languages use words similar to the British with slightly different meanings. Some British words have unspeakable meanings in other languages, but we do not rule them out of the dictionary for that reason. The objection that the word "citizen" has a republican trend reminds me of the attitude of a friend of mine, a cricketer, who was wearing a garish cricket tie—its colours being black, red and yellow—in New York. Walking down Fifth Avenue he saw a window full of braces, socks, belts and ties in those
  438
  identical colours. In a furious temper he walked into the shop, asked to see the manager and demanded to know by what right the shop was exhibiting his club tie in New York. To certain words there is not only a British meaning. It might be argued in the same way that because the words "Duke" or "Earl" are the favourite Christian names of dance band leaders and cowboys in America, they are no longer suitable to denote the higher grades of our aristocracy and that we ought to substitute the words "Morgan" or "Baruch" or something similar.
  The argument goes further—that not merely citizenship, as citizenship, has a republican trend; but, as was hinted again today from hon. Members opposite, that it is a dangerous word to use in the Colonies and will give food for agitators. That argument is really nonsense. What, in fact, are we trying to do throughout every Colony in the Empire? We are trying in every Colony forms of local government; we are trying to induce every subject in the Colony to acquire a sense of civic responsibility, in however primitive a form. We are asking them to undertake, from the humblest to the most complicated way, the obligations of—what? Of citizenship. I cannot think of any word which better describes the whole effort of British policy throughout the Colonial Empire at this time than the attainment of citizenship. Yet, when the party opposite, and their leaders in another place, come to consider the suitability of this word to denote the differences between the members of the British Comonwealth, they feel that "citizenship" is something which will be explosive, food for agitators and will disrupt the Empire. They have entirely failed to keep abreast of what is going on in the Empire, of which they say they are so very proud.
  I will go further. It seems to me to be a mistake—perhaps not avoidable now, but I hope it may be possible to deal with it in Committee—that we have had to lump together the citizenship of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies. I know it is argued that because the Colonies are dependent territories we could not let their inhabitants call themselves citizens of their particular place. I do not see the force of that argument. Citizenship implies obligations but it need not imply the same obligations in every

  439
  place—indeed, it does not. I cannot see why the inhabitants of Fiji or Nigeria, who every day are being exhorted to realise their duties as citizens of their country, which has its own Government and passes its own laws—which they are encouraged to know all about—should not under this Bill, be citizens of Fiji or Nigeria and be "British subjects" or "Commonwealth citizens." This would not make a great difference to the drafting of the Bill and would make more sense. If countries like Nigeria, the Gold Coast and others attain to fuller responsibility, it will become more and more absurd to call the citizens of those countries "citizens of the United Kingdom." They will be more essentially citizens of their own country and will become more fully so. I hope all this will be considered again in Committee.
  Lastly, I wish to speak about Ireland. Having read about the obviously difficult Irish disputes, it has always seemed to me that any step which began to get the Governments of Ireland and of this country thinking along common lines was a step in the right direction. I remember reading all the intricate and difficult "discussions over external associations"—the phrase, I think, with which Mr. de Valera tried to describe the relationship existing between the two countries from 1935 onwards. It was described as a happy relationship by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, but I should have thought it had all the seeds of constant friction. When one hears—no doubt I shall be contradicted if I am wrong—that, even if there was not the fullest agreement, there was at least no violent disagreement about the terms of the present Measure and that the Irish Government did not regard it with great antagonism, that seemed a very hopeful sign that, perhaps because of the lapse of time and the recognition of Ireland's desire to be an independent country, we were coming to a state of affairs where even on difficult constitutional points, we might be able to reach agreement.
  But, apparently not so, according to hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that about Ireland their attitude really is conservative. Having in the past refused to recognise our responsibility, they intend to continue in their attitude. The position is that we in this country now insist that
  440
  every Irishman is a British subject, whether he likes it or not. Every man and woman living in Ireland is, in the eyes of this country, a British subject; and it has been argued in another place that there is nothing wrong about that because a Canadian citizen is no less loyal because he remains a British subject, and therefore why should the position not be the same in Ireland?
  The answer is that Irish law expressly lays down that if an Irish citizen becomes a citizen of another country, ipso facto he ceases to be an Irish citizen Therefore, what we are doing is to encourage Irish citizens to be disloyal. By the insertion of this provision in Clause 1, that is what the party opposite wish to continue. If we are to obtain a sound relationship with Ireland, we must fully realise their desire to be an independent country. Difficult though that may be, it is time we made a beginning. I think a beginning was made tentatively by this Bill as it stood and there was a measure of agreement which I hope will be restored.
  6.52 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: I can point out a perfectly simple way by which agreement would always be obtained with the Government of Eire—one which is so simple that I am surprised the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) has not found it obvious—that is, to give way on every point; then, of course, we would get agreement. The question of nationality is one with which those unfortunate people, students, who are about to suffer under the Inns of Court or the Law Society, are faced in moments of considerable apprehension when they have a really well thought out question on nationality produced for them by an examiner. I do not think this Bill is going to make their position any easier. In fact, I think it will give the examiner some rather encouraging opportunities for exercising his ingenuity.
  No doubt there had to be a Bill of this kind, although the time is inopportune, and I think a good deal of this Bill is unfortunate. As many hon. Members wish to speak, I will address myself almost entirely to one aspect—the Bill in relation to Eire. In moving the Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admitted the difficulty in which he and all of us are placed owing to

  441
  the fact that his intentions are to chop the Bill into pieces to a considerable extent. By one such cut he will deprive citizens of Eire of a right they have always enjoyed, and enjoyed with us, so far as I know without a single protest, that is, to remain British subjects. That right is apparently to be taken from them. Who are most affected by this?
  It is not a new situation; we have had it for 13 years. In 1935 the Dail passed an Act in which they established Irish citizenship and said that if an Irish citizen became a British subject he would lose his Irish citizenship. At the same time, a very large number of citizens of Eire enjoyed privileges of British citizenship, many doctors and people in Government service, and there were certainly no protests about that. The people who valued their position as British subjects more than anyone else were those whom we used to call the Southern Irish Loyalists. The Southern Irish Loyalists looked upon themselves as British subjects, and considering their small numbers, I do not think any class of British subject has done more for the British Commonwealth at large. From the time of the first Duke of Wellington, who definitely was one of that class, there has been a whole list of people to whom the service of the British Commonwealth was their first interest. The Southern Irish Loyalist is not particularly friendly to me, or my constituents. He always looked on the largely working-class communities of Ulster as rather crude.
  I have lived in Southern Ireland a good deal and I know their point of view and I am not entirely unsympathetic. They have a passionate attachment to England, but they are being deprived by this proposed alteration of their status as British citizens. What do they get in exchange? So far as I can see they are placed in the position of those who do not wish to subscribe to the political fund of a trade union and they have to opt out. They have to make an application in writing to the Home Secretary in order to retain their British citizenship and can only do that in certain circumstances. It is a humiliating position. They were the bulk of those who came from Eire and fought so gallantly in the war and they are very much attached to this country. It is humiliating for them to be put into the position of having to apply in writing to retain what they consider their birthright.
  442
  The whole matter rests on what is the position of Eire. I hope that when he replies, the Attorney-General will deal with the situation and that we shall not have some enigma of variations but will be told Eire's position. Has it ceased to be a Dominion? Up to the present there has been a dual view. The British Government have always considered citizens of Eire to be British citizens and have given them those rights and considered that Eire still owed allegiance to the Crown. About 1942 a legal authority held that the allegiance of Eire to the Crown had never been repudiated. What is the consequence if the proposed alterations are made? It is the cutting of the painter, it is breaking the last connection between Eire and the United Kingdom. Is it the acknowledgment of an entirely separate nationality, or is it not?
  In the course of the Bill it is laid down that the expression "alien" will not be applied to any citizen of Eire. Why not? Do they not fulfil every description or definition of alien to be found in any dictionary, as being citizens of another country? I hope we shall have some elucidation on that point, because it seems a matter of grave importance. Up to the present, although the position was difficult and perhaps a divergent view was taken, the enthusiastic Erse-speaking Eire citizen has considered himself a citizen of Eire, while the Southern Loyalist, as we usually called him, considers himself a British subject. So far as I know no harm is done. Now not only can there be no more British subjects, because the children of the present generation cannot qualify if they live in Eire, but those who have been British subjects all their lives will cease to be so, unless they apply in writing and can secure the necessary qualifications.
  There are one or two questions I would like to ask. A citizen of Eire is now to be granted most of the rights of a British citizen. There is in the White Paper a suggestion that British subjects can count on reciprocal treatment, and that those in Eire will enjoy the rights that are enjoyed by the citizens of that country. What guarantee is there of that? Have we any certainty that that will happen? We can remember that in the recent war there was a definite discrimination against soldiers of the United Kingdom vis-a-vis Dominion troops, because British soldiers, if they went to Eire or even were natives of

  443
  Eire, could not go there in uniform whereas the Dominion soldiers could.
  What undertaking have we that this arrangement is reciprocal? What is the advantage beyond that of sentiment to those who apply for and obtain British citizenship? They will have to go to considerable trouble in order to retain the right of British citizenship, and in some districts they will become rather marked men. What advantage will they gain in so doing over that of a citizen of Eire? These points are really material, and certainly a most important point in the whole Bill is whether this is an acknowledgment by the Government that Eire is an entirely separate community and has no connection with, as it admits it has no allegiance to, this country, for I cannot see that any connection will be left if the Bill goes through in the manner in which it is proposed.
  The only thing that I would say in conclusion is that those whose political ideas are governed by a desire for geographical symmetry had better know that, as regards the part of Ireland which I have the honour to represent, in addition to the many other obstacles and reasons why we certainly would not join as part of Eire, this Bill is adding a further and very high barrier indeed. We are determined to be and to remain subjects of the King. That we will do.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Delargy: It is always a very great pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), because normally I can guess beforehand what he is going to say, and, therefore, it is fairly easy to prepare a reply. I know that normally, for example, he will talk about the late war and how the men from his part of the Province of Ulster overcame the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese. I was wondering how he would bring it into the present Debate, but he has done it. I will not follow him in his arguments about the late war, but he has said that he has a great amount of sympathy for the citizens of Eire, because this Bill, if it is amended as the Home Secretary wishes it to be and as I am sure it will be, will deprive the citizens of Eire of certain rights. I do not think we need waste too many tears about that, in view of the fact that the enormous majority of the citizens
  444
  of Eire—about 98 per cent.—do not want any such rights, and, indeed, have gone to very great lengths in the past, including even armed revolt, in order to make it perfectly clear that they did not recognise the rights which Mother England, with tender solicitude, endeavoured to force upon them.
  The only people concerned—and the hon. Member for Londonderry is perfectly right about them—are the very small body of people known as Irish Loyalists—very worthy people with political views that are not mine. They can have British citizenship merely by applying for it. The hon. Gentleman thinks this is a humiliating procedure. I fail to see anything humiliating about it. Is it humiliating for these Southern Irish Loyalists, with all their vaunted pro-British traditions and with all their deep love for the English people and Crown, merely to send in a form to the Home Secretary? Earlier in the Debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) also mentioned the same point about the new position of this country and Eire. He said he was very unhappy that the vague and undefined position, which so far has existed between the two countries, will now no longer continue. For myself I am never happy observing things which are vague, loose, undetermined, and undefined. I am not a lawyer. I have a tidy mind. I like a definition and I like to know precisely where I stand, and where everybody stands.
  This Bill, for the first time, seeks to clarify the position between the two countries. Eire passed their Citizenship Act in 1935. There was nothing to stop them, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman almost inferred that it is necessary for us to approve of that Act before it will have any effect. No such approval, of course, is necessary. We could not stop Eire any more than we could have stopped Canada from passing their Act in 1946. He went on to say that hitherto this undefined position enabled us to impose our interpretation on the Act, and Eire to put their interpretation on the Act so that there was no clash between us. We are still doing that. The Irish are still putting their interpretation on the Act; His Majesty's Government now seek to put an interpretation on the Act, and lo and behold! there is no

  445
  clash between us. That is a happier position than before when things were so ill-defined.
  The Irish technicians were present at the February Conference in 1947 and were delighted with the efficiency and the impartiality of Sir Alexander Maxwell, who presided at that conference. With the rest of us they will be pleased at the well deserved tribute paid this afternoon by the Home Secretary to that distinguished public servant. The Irish at the Conference agreed with the general provisions arrived at. That indeed is something to be pleased about, because it does not always happen that the negotiators from across the Irish Sea find themselves in agreement with our negotiators here. It would be a pity if this large measure of agreement, arrived at by civil servants on both sides of the Channel and approved of by the Home Secretary and by His Majesty's Government as well as in Eire by the present Government and by the former Government, which is now the Opposition, were broken by an Amendment from another place, which, with all respect to that august assembly, is rather narrow and out of date.
  Most Irishmen, of course, dislike being thought of as British subjects. There is no need to tell the House the reasons for that. There are hundreds of reasons spread over hundreds of years. Irishmen are not alone in that dislike. The Home Secretary has reminded us that there are thousands of people in Canada and South Africa who have a similar repugnance. The Bill makes provision precisely for that situation. Indeed, who they shall be who are to be described as "citizens" or "subjects" will be finally decided by the people themselves in those other countries, and not by us. I hope that the Bill, with the Home Secretary's, recommendations, will be passed unanimously. It is a good Bill and we ought to accept it.
  7.11 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: At the beginning of this Debate the Home Secretary said that in his opinion the Bill was necessary as an immediate Measure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) suggested that the Bill could be delayed until after the next Imperial Conference of Prime Ministers. It is also stated that it would be better if we had
  446
  a distinct view as to the attitude of Dominion Governments towards the recommendations of the representatives of the Dominions, but I do not think it is possible for this House to foretell or to suggest what legislation should be passed in a Dominion Parliament.
  The danger of making such a suggestion is another indication that the Bill is an extremely difficult one to discuss and is one which every hon. Member should approach, not from a party point of view, but in order to try to understand the evolution of the British Commonwealth. I did my best to understand the Debate in the House of Lords, but I confess that I could not understand all the grounds of objection. The more I tried to follow it the more difficult it became. The main points have been rather smudged over and slurred by some of the discussions that we have heard, and the Debate in this House has shown that there are still confused issues.
  I want to ask the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General to make something clear to me on which I am not clear at all. The case was cited of the position of a British subject who was an Indian, and who might find himself in South Africa. By the laws of that Dominion he might be deprived of South African citizenship. It is assumed to follow from that that he would cease to be a British subject. As I understand the Bill, if such a man belonged to Pakistan or to India—we assume that those States are going to pass similar legislation—he would be a citizen of either Pakistan or India, and therefore he would be a British subject in that way. I want to know whether that interpretation is right. It would mean that an Indian in South Africa would not lose his status as British subject as has been suggested, provided that he was a citizen of either India or Pakistan. That is a very important point.
  We have a responsibility in this House to see that nobody who is a genuine subject of the King, and has held the position of British subject, is deprived of that position. It is something of which we really are custodians. Some of the proposals in the Bill as it has emerged from another place will not help us. It would be a terrible mistake, at this juncture when so many changes are taking place, if we tried to assume that we know better than the Dominions what they want. I

  447
  understand that they have all asked for this legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to know, and I am asking the question. I know that I am taking a line which may be unpopular with my own party. I have been in this House for a long time and I remember that in 1920 we had many cases raised concerning Ireland. Anything which can be done to bring about some understanding after all these years of controversy, is of the very greatest importance. It is unique in my recollection for any representatives from Ireland to agree with any body of people in this country, let alone in common with all the Dominions.
  Our responsibilities are far greater than that. My right hon. and learned Friend said, as I understood it, that if the political complexion of the Government were changed, it might be possible for the party then in office to restore the Amendment that had been made in another place. I beg the House to remember that continuity of policy in regard to the Commonwealth is absolutely vital. If we are going to chop and change, I think it will be the end of the association of free nations that has made the British Commonwealth. In regard to the term "citizen," there is nothing derogatory about being a citizen. I do not think that it is a revolutionary term. It is an evolutionary term. I believe that the whole policy of our country has been to try to bring the Colonies forward to greater knowledge of citizenship. We are doing it every day. Why, therefore, have a contradiction in terms in this matter? I should look forward to the time not when a man would be described as a citizen of a particular place—I think the Gold Coast or Gambia has been mentioned—but of one of a number of groups of Colonies which will eventually be merged into the Commonwealth. That surely is common to all parties in this country. I have never heard any responsible Member of the Opposition declare that the policy of the party is against such progress. I believe that we are united—or I hope so—in every party in the House in regard to this kind of evolution.
  There is another matter which has not been touched upon. In visits which I have paid to different parts of the Colonial Empire I have always observed
  448
  the curious fact that those who live in a Protectorate cannot be British subjects. We have talked a great deal in the House today about the status of a British subject; how many hon. Members realise that in a large part of West Africa the large majority of the people are debarred from being British subjects? Under the Bill they may become British subjects. That will be a tremendous step towards producing a better situation. Some of the more enterprising men are willing, under British tutelage, to learn our way of life, but are unable to do so, because they are not British subjects.
  As I read the Bill—I hope that the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will contradict me if I am wrong on this point—and paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the White Paper, about the position in British Protectorates, it seems clear that we bring into the status of British subject a large number of persons whose status is at present in dispute. Is not that so? I believe that it is on the nomination of the Government that that will be so. At any rate, the point is that if it is not so, I hope it will be made so in the Bill. We are anxious, so far as I know, to encourage everybody to be proud of being a British subject and that people who are desirous of becoming British subjects should not be debarred.
  Mr. Peake: As I read the White Paper, particularly paragraph 13, and the Bill, it is declared that British protected persons are not aliens, but it is not declared that they are, or will become, British citizens.
  Sir R. Glyn: I thought we were going half way towards it. I thought that the whole purpose of the Bill was that we and they are common citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. I hoped that it would be all-embracing and able to include those people. I hoped that we should be able to push on an open door and find that the Colonial Secretary and His Majesty's Government would be willing to accept an Amendment to give effect to that.
  There seems to be a great opportunity in this Bill for us to consider the way in which the Commonwealth is going forward and the lines upon which it is proceeding. I have had very long talks with friends of mine in different Dominions about this Bill. I have been very worried about it.

  449
  It is one of the most important Bills that has come before Parliament. If we make a mistake now, we may do irreparable harm. It is a Bill about which everybody must act according to his conscience. The position of the King as the figurehead of the whole British Commonwealth and Empire is a wonderful conception. As we are proceeding, we are going more and more towards the status of a sort of Crowned Republic which may be a contradiction in terms but which is no more strange than the whole conception of the British Commonwealth.
  We are proceeding on something which is very new, something about which we have confidence. The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) probably knows more of the historical background than any other hon. Member, but I have always believed that one of the real links of the British Commonwealth and Empire is the position of the Privy Council. Every Minister in Canada has to be a Member of the Canadian Privy Council, and the advice offered to the King in the person of the Governor General is given by them as Members of the Privy Council. In some of the great Dominions, of course, it is not necessary to be a Member of the Privy Council, but the conception of Kingship plus the idea of the Privy Council seems to be the basis of the whole of our form of Government and the great hope of the future.
  I think that I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) that the conception of the Imperial Conference as we used to know it is passing, partly on account of easier communications and also because of the immense growth of the Dominions themselves. The people in Canada, indeed in British Columbia, are proud not only of being Canadians but British Columbians. It is a great thing to be a Canadian. Canada is a young, virile splendid country, and we are not going to deprive them of being British subjects. We must not give them the impression that we are trying to deprive them of their rights and freedoms as to what they themselves shall consider their own nationality. I do not think that any hon. Member wishes to give that impression. If one knows Quebec, as many hon. Gentlemen do, one cannot pretend that the enthusiasm of the French Canadian for the term "British subject" is exactly what we would like it to be. On
  450
  the other hand, the more we give and the more they take which gives them still their position under the Crown and in the Commonwealth, the more sure I believe the future of the British Commonwealth to be.
  I suggest that as a result of the Statute of Westminster, we should not always think that Prime Ministers should meet in London. Why should not the British Prime Minister occasionally go to Ottawa or Australia? The whole conception of the Commonwealth is that we are equal States and we have our common claim of brotherhood and allegiance to the Crown. I am sure that there is not one single soul, either in the United Kingdom or in the Colonies, who really minds being called a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but I think that it would be a real test of accomplishment in the future, that this Commonwealth may give to the world, at a time when it wants it so much, leadership, that there should be the absolute right for each of the Dominions, the great member States to say what they want so that we can go forward fearing nothing. I believe that this Bill is an essential Bill as it was originally introduced, because it was agreed by all the representatives of the Dominions. I think that is sufficient for us, provided that we believe that it will not be against the interests of any individual, coloured or otherwise. I think that Pakistan and India will look at this Debate and positively decide whether they remain or do not remain inside the Commonwealth according to how we act and the suggestions we put forward.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Symonds: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the most constructive approach of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). His speech stands out in contrast to the attitude of most of those who so far have spoken in opposition to the Bill. They have shown themselves to be what I can only describe as Canute-minded. No matter what happens in the Commonwealth, no matter what changes take place, they wish everything to remain the same. I would instance the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) who seemed to suggest that, no matter what laws the Eire Government might pass affecting the citizenship of Eire nationals, those Eire citizens would

  451
  remain British subjects. Then the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in his reminiscences of his visits to some of the senior Dominions, seemed to resent the fact that not only had we a Labour Government here, but there was a Labour Government in New Zealand and Australia and that there was a Liberal Government in Canada which had produced its objectionable citizenship Bill. Somehow, one felt that between them, South Dorset and South Africa would maintain the ancient ways. I consider that the changes made in the Bill in another place make it almost meaningless. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can see the beginning of the Bill now says that anyone who is a British subject is a British subject and shall have the status of a British subject, which leaves us just where we were before.
  It is suggested that this Bill has been a rushed affair, that it has been drawn up entirely by officials and that, instead, we should have waited for an Imperial Conference. It is untrue to say that this was merely a matter for officials. It was made clear during the discussions in another place that both Field-Marshal Smuts and Mr. Mackenzie King had personal conversations with the Lord Chancellor on these matters. As has already been pointed out, these matters cannot wait for Imperial Conferences which are so exceedingly difficult to arrange. It is no use blaming the Prime Minister of this country for not calling an Imperial Conference. He cannot summon the Dominion Prime Ministers to a Conference here or anywhere else. If the respective Prime Ministers find it impossible to get together at a particular place at a certain time, that is just too bad, and we must try to make alternative arrangements.
  This was a good Bill in its original form, because it represented agreement between a wide variety of countries. Therefore, I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that he intends to restore the Bill to its original form during its progress through this House. It arose, I would say, from two things: first, there was the long continued agitation on the subject of the nationality of married women, a matter which has been brought to the notice of Governments, not only here but in the Dominions, in season and out of season. Also there was the
  452
  Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946. The agitation for a change in the status of married women has gone on ever since the year 1870 when, for the first time, British women lost their nationality on marriage to an alien. In 1931 the Government of the day declared at Geneva:
  "The British Government considers that it is right that all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed and that, in so far as nationality is concerned, a married woman should be in the same position as a man or any single woman."
  That declaration has never been repudiated by any subsequent Government, but it was difficult to get anything done about it because it was felt essential to get common action among the Dominions Governments. The matter was not mentioned in the proposed agenda for the first postwar meeting of the Dominions Prime Ministers, and when it was raised in this House the Prime Minister said that as this was not a full Imperial Conference, it was hardly a suitable occasion to raise this issue. Shortly afterwards, however, the Australian Prime Minister said he would be raising it and so, in answer to a Question I put on 18th April, 1946, the Prime Minister said that if the Dominions desired to raise this issue, he would be happy to have it put on the agenda.
  Once it was put on the agenda, however, it was found that this issue of the nationality of married women could not be dealt with in isolation, and in June of 1946 the Prime Minister said:
  "As a result of discussions at the meeting of Prime Ministers, arrangements were made for informal talks between officials of the Governments of the Dominions represented at the meeting and United Kingdom officials on nationality questions generally with special reference to the particular problem of the nationality of married women."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1801.]
  It was found then that the question of the nationality of married women could not be dealt with in isolation, even though it was at that time becoming more and more of an acute problem. At that time, remember, the ban on marriages between British soldiers and German women still existed, and there was a difficult situation in Germany because British women who, before the war, had married Germans, had no status at all among our own people, whereas women of Allied countries married to Germans before the

  453
  war found themselves recognised by those Allies when they entered Germany. There was a further difficulty that at this time the licensed houses were being closed down in France, and there was great fear of an increase in that traffic, which had been known before, of women coming to this country, making a marriage of convenience, and acquiring British nationality simply in order to get to this country.
  The Dominions Prime Ministers thus arranged for this matter to be investigated, and it was soon found that there was no longer any dispute on the issue of married women, but they felt that a further conference was required by experts on the matter of nationality generally. Eventually a draft Bill, so the Home Secretary said on 3rd July, 1947, was prepared for circulation among the Dominions Governments, and the proposals with regard to the nationality of married women are those we have in this Bill. The Act of 1870 is reversed but there seems to be still one difficulty. Alien women, when marrying British subjects become registered in this country and not naturalised; in other words, they do not take any oath of allegiance and it is simply a matter of signing a register. Women feel that that is really not enough, because it is making the taking up of British citizenship a rather casual affair. The Home Secretary himself said on 15th November, 1945:
  "It will, I am sure, be generally agreed that the high privilege of British citizenship should not be conferred rashly and without adequate investigations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2307.]
  But it has been for the past 100 years granted automatically on marriage. It would surely be better if alien women were put on exactly the same basis as alien men and had to take an oath of allegiance when becoming British citizens.
  There are one or two questions I would like to ask in regard to that. What happens if the Home Secretary declines to register such an alien woman? Is she then stateless if her former country is one which says she loses her nationality on marriage? There is a further point: what is to be the nationality of the children of parents who are of mixed nationality—that of the father? And will that happen automatically, or will there be any option in the matter? A further general point arises out of this issue.
  454
  There are still numerous discrepancies, even after this Bill, between the arrangements we make and the arrangements made in other countries of the world. We have the difficult question of the Russian brides, and I would like to feel that somehow, somewhere, steps were being taken to try to sort out these matters in order to get some form of agreement. I do not think the draft Commission of Human Rights goes into sufficient detail, and I feel that these issues of nationality, complicated as they are, really should be looked into on a general basis by some organ of U.N.O.
  As it was found that the question of the nationality of married women could not be dealt with in isolation, and the broader issues of nationality had to come up, we then produced this Bill. It has been stated that the Bill is unnecessary and creates difficulties, but surely that is putting the cart before the horse, because the Bill simply arises because there have been these difficulties, increasing in number in recent years. I need not go into detail of the new concept which appears in this. Bill, as that has been already fully explained. The idea of nationality through the door of citizenship is one which it is very simple to understand. A Dominion, say, Canada, says to us, "We create citizens; you create citizens, and we add them together and they become Commonwealth citizens." That involves us in the task of creating, for the first time, our own citizenship, to put up on exactly the same basis as the countries of the Commonwealth.
  The consequences of all this are very far-reaching. It means that new Dominions like Pakistan, India and Ceylon can define their own citizenship without any by your leave. Unless they choose to do so they need not label themselves "British subjects" if they dislike, as some do, both the word "British" and the word "subject." They can call themselves "Commonwealth citizens" because the two phrases "Commonwealth citizen" and "British subject" are considered equally valid. The French-Canadians, the Dutch South Africans simply do not regard themselves as "British subjects," and I quite expect that the inhabitants of Pakistan, India and Ceylon would prefer to be called "Citizens of the Commonwealth" simply because to them, even if not to us,

  455
  "British subject" implies some form of subjection.
  There was a further consequence of this new concept. It offered, for the first time for many years, a basis of agreement with Eire. The arrangement arrived at may sound rather Irish, but it can work. The Eire Commonwealth and Citizenship Act, 1935, Section 21, says:
  "Every citizen who except by marriage becomes the citizen of another country ceases to be a citizen of Eire."
  The Bill proposed that, in Eire, a citizen who wished to remain a British subject could claim to do so simply by writing to the Home Secretary, the distinction being that to remain a British subject is not the same as to become a British subject. The Eire negotiators therefore accepted it as no infringement of the 1935 Act. We said that as far as we were concerned all Eire citizens could have rights as though they were still British subjects, even though, by Eire law, they might not be British subjects. Eire accepted both those propositions, and so, for the first time for years, we had an agreement between this country and Eire.
  The Amendments moved in another place make complete nonsense of the whole of the agreements. By putting "British subject" into the first part of the formula, instead of citizenship leading to nationality the Amendment says that people are to be called "British subjects" whether they like it or not. No matter what India, Pakistan and so on, decide they would like to be called, they are to be known as British subjects so far as we are concerned. The word "citizen" has been objected to because of its republican flavour—memories of 1789, I suppose. From the discussions in another place I felt that in the minds of some noble Lords there was not much difference between the word "citizen" and the word "comrade." It was almost as though the Bill was proposing to establish a new kind of person, a "comrade of the United Kingdom and Colonies." Indeed, one noble Lord actually said that the establishment of the word "citizen "would create a fertile ground for political agitators.
  If, with regard to countries formerly under direct government from this country, the principle is to be that no matter what they choose to call themselves they
  456
  are, from our point of view, to be British subjects, I wonder that there has not been a move to go back still further, to 1776, and to say that no matter what the citizens of the U.S.A. choose to call themselves they are, from our point of view, still British subjects. There is now no more reason for labelling as a British subject, unless he so chooses to be labelled, a citizen of Bombay than there is a citizen of Brooklyn.
  As a result of the Amendments in another place, the whole of the agreement with Eire is torpedoed. Agreement between such diverse countries on these complicated matters might well have seemed impossible of attainment, but agreement was reached and we arrived at a common understanding. If countries like South Africa, India or Eire can all agree with us on the methods of tackling these problems, anyone who torpedoes such an agreement does a disservice to Commonwealth relations. That has been done in another place, where their Lordships seem to claim to know better what the Commonwealth wants than does the Commonwealth itself. It is now the duty of this House to reverse the decisions of another place, to put back into the Bill the arrangements worked out after lengthy discussions and in full agreement with the Commonwealth and Colonies, and to show itself more concerned to preserve the harmony of the Commonwealth than is the majority party in another place.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) who, in this House, represents me, I think and I hope, no better than I in this House represent him. I fear that it is too late at this stage to try to teach even a schoolmaster the truth about Canute, but it is really almost time that a Canute Indemnity Bill was passed by this House, because there is hardly a week in which somebody here does not accuse that unfortunate and defunct monarch of vices and mistakes precisely the opposite of the truth.
  I did make some attempt, rather like Laocoon wrestling with two serpents simultaneously, to master the technical details of both forms of this Bill, as introduced and as amended. I am bound to say that I did not make so much effort

  457
  as I ought to have made, and that some of the effect of what effort I made has vanished in the last five hours. Therefore, I propose to do something which it is always dangerous to try, to talk about what seems to me the general upshot without being certain that I have fully mastered the exact details. I am sure the Attorney-General will correct me if I fall at any rate into gross errors of fact or of legal interpretation.
  This Bill, so far as I can see, seems designed to meet two points, and I take the minor one first because it was the main burden of the speech to which the House has just listened. One is the woman's nationality point and the other is what might be called the Dominions sensitivity point. Is there anything else? Are not these the two main points? The Attorney-General shakes his head. I am not sure whether he thinks there is a third point or whether he thinks these are not major points. I think these are the two main, major points of the Bill—
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member invites me to intervene. I do not want to interrupt, but by my silence I do not mean it to be thought that I am acquiescing for one moment in his proposition.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I should be the last to desire to break the Attorney-General's silence if, at the same time, I could prevent the mandarinisation of his top-piece, which takes charge at critical points in my rather unprepared argument—ambiguous becking without any explicit utterance is what leaves me rather befogged. I think those are the two main points of the Bill—I approach the women's point the more readily because it has been assumed by almost every speaker that that is outside controversy. I am on the Blimp side of the controversy. I think somebody should so avow himself—perhaps one better than I—on that side of this question. I understand, to be candid on this question, that the Bill is returning to the common law. Nine times out of ten I am for the common law and against whatever Bill or statute is being proposed, but on this occasion I am against the common law. I am only guessing here—but I think the only reason for the common law rule in the matter must have been the extreme tenderness in feudal times about landed property, the great unwillingness on grounds of
  458
  public policy that a woman not in every sense English should hold English land. It is a rather curious paradox that at this moment and on these grounds we should be going back to this rule, if those were the original grounds.
  It seems to me that what we are now doing about married women is wrong on obvious grounds. First of all, if this Bill is passed, we are giving the Home Secretary an entirely new power over Englishmen. Where an Englishman marries anybody not a British subject the Home Secretary will be able to say, "No, that woman looks to me"—I do not know how he is going to guess—"as though she might very easily turn into a harlot," and then she cannot be made a British subject and cannot have the right of entry into this country. That is the power we are giving to the Home Secretary and it is important that we get it clear. I disapprove as much as any man of whore-mongering and harlotry; they are very horrid things, and if I could be sure that by doing this we were going to abolish prostitution from our island shores and, indeed, from the rest of our islands, too, I should think it worth while; but I do not see—and I cannot believe—that anyone supposes that is going to be the result. If we are merely going to alter by some small percentage—three or five or ten—the number of foreign-born women who live here in the worst way, that seems to me to be too small a reward for giving up what has been the law now for two full generations.
  Secondly, it seems to me that the Bill is wrong in what it does about married women with foreign husbands. I think it a real misunderstanding of the essential nature either of marriage or of nationality to suppose that a woman married to a foreigner, a man who has a foreign allegiance, could in every sense, and completely, preserve her devotion to the British Crown. It seems to me not really to be facing the facts, which we have been adjured to do several times today from the other side of the House, to assume that they twain can be one flesh although they cannot possibly have one passport. Those are the objections to the Bill, on both the married woman points.
  The other main part of the Bill is to try to get away from the feeling, on the part of other portions of His Majesty's Dominions or by some inhabitants, that

  459
  there is some kind of inferiority of status or undesirability of title in the present arrangements. I think that is a fair way of putting the second main object of the Bill and I am prepared to be convinced—although I am not yet convinced—that the Bill, either as amended, or as it now stands, might be the best way to do that. It seems to me it is not, on a general ground which I hope to be allowed shortly to explain to the House.
  Hitherto, in all our history, nationality has depended upon allegiance. That fact has had very great benefits. The greatest benefits have been those which have not been foreseen beforehand, and they have occurred more than once at critical times. I think there is no doubt, for instance, that the growing together of the English and Scottish populations which happened in the 17th century and made possible the statutory union in the 18th century, could not have happened if it had not been for the judicial decision in the Post-nati case upon the basis of the doctrine of allegiance, a decision which enabled the children of Scottish parents born on Scottish soil, after the accession of James to the English Throne, to do what any English subject could do, own English land or English ships. That had an enormous, necessarily unpredictable but, on looking back on it, enormous, effect on the future for the whole of this island.
  Similarly, we tend to forget that although no doubt George III was disliked, the fundamental thing about the American rebellion was that it was a rebellion against statutory omni-competence rather than a rebellion against the Crown, in the sense of the prerogative or any part of it. What made it possible for a new British Empire to grow up—a second Empire—after what seemed to most contemporaries, and certainly to most contemporaries abroad, towards the end of the 18th century, as the end of the British Empire and greatness, what made possible the growing up of a second and quite different sort of Empire in the succeeding generation, was again largely the effect which the doctrine of allegiance had upon the nature of nationality and the possibilities of developing it.
  Those great benefits happened in the past. I cannot now predict what similar great benefits may happen in the future from the close connection between nationality and allegiance. Perhaps I may put
  460
  the point a little more specifically if the House will bear with me for another paragraph or two. Of course,. I do not admit the reproaches from the other side, and I am sure that nobody upon these benches doubts the omni-competence of this Parliament as it concerns the inhabitants of this country nor the omni-competence of the Dominion Parliaments as they concern the inhabitants of those countries. Nobody here challenges that at all. Nobody here is trying in any way to limit any freedom claimed or claimable for the Dominion Parliaments.
  But the most important things in political life—I do not mean the political life of a man but the political life of a human community—are those things which can be taken for granted, those things which go on, as it were, biologically and not by dint of requiring conscious and ex-cogitated consent except at the rarest possible intervals. That has been the concept of English and, since the Union, of British nationality. However this Bill is amended—whichever form we take, or into whatever hypothetical form it may be amended in the next fortnight, it cannot but very much reduce that. I think that reduction of the allegiance principle must be the effect of this Bill. That seems to raise a heavy presumption against the Bill—I do not say an irebutable presumption, but I think a very heavy presumption. We have been told more than once—we were told by the Secretary of State and by other speakers opposite—that we must follow the example of Canada. I admit that I am not giving his exact words, but I am right in the purport of his remarks, and I think if he looks in HANSARD he will see I fairly represent what he actually said.
  Mr. Ede: I am sorry if I conveyed any such impression to the House. What I said is that we cannot disregard the effect of what Canada has done on the general question.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I entirely agree. Of course, we cannot disregard any relevant matter, but, with respect, what the right hon. Gentleman did say—I have now found my notes, which I would not have done if he had not interrupted me—was that we "must follow the Canadian lead." I took down his words in inverted commas. I am as willing to follow the Canadian lead as any one, and perhaps more willing to follow the

  461
  Canadian lead than anybody else's lead, or as willing. But look where the argument takes us. We are told that we are not being sensitive enough in recognising the full right of each Dominion Parliament to do exactly as each Dominion Parliament chooses, and simultaneously we are told that we must follow the Canadian lead.
  I say that a kind of bargain or agreement which tries to work that way really cannot work long. I say that it is part of the Home Secretary's duty, before he gets this Bill, to convince us that the Canadian lead is, in every sense and in every effect, a Canadian lead; that is to say, that when the Canadians passed this Statute it was after the fullest possible discussion in Canada and it was after the fullest possible discussion between Canada and this country. I do not see how that really can be when one thinks of the date: it was immediately after the war. It was when right hon. and hon. Members opposite were still enjoying being "the masters now"—when, indeed, there was still something to be masters of. It was in those days, and I cannot believe that the two Governments at that point put down everything else and hammered out all the possible ways of dealing with the difficulties that had arisen, and of avoiding anomalies which were then current, without creating new anomalies. It is quite difficult to believe that.
  If that did not happen, then it is quite plain that it ought to happen at some stage, and I would like here to answer a point which has been put by at least two speakers from the other side—the argument that the Imperial Conference of this Autumn is not so full and formal and pompous an Imperial Conference as has sometimes happened before, and that, therefore, it will not do. That seems to me to be a very odd argument. If it is not full and pompous and political enough, how can a Committee sitting on the official level have been important enough for the purpose? Reference to the new Conference seems to me necessary.
  The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that this is a Bill of the utmost constitutional importance, and I agree, although I do not think he made it very clear why it is of the utmost constitutional importance. I think it is of the utmost constitutional importance. If it is
  462
  of the utmost constitutional importance, surely we ought not to let it go forward for His Majesty's consent until we have been certain that all that the people in England likely to be interested in such things—I admit that most people in four ale bars will not worry about this rather intricate legislation, but until we have made certain that all the people in England who are likely to be interested in such things have had a full and fair opportunity of long and complete public discussion.
  Secondly, we ought to be absolutely dead certain that every one of the Dominions, whom we are continually being adjured to please, is in fact going to be better pleased by this than by any other conceivable alternative. We have not had anything like that assurance yet from the right hon. Gentleman. He said—this was on the Irish part of it—that it is "no secret" that the Eire authorities are all for it. That is no way for His Majesty's principal Secretary of State to talk. He must not come here and say, "I learn in authoritative circles that," or "it is no secret that," or what not. He surely must tell us specifically. His supporters, including the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) who, so to speak, was one of his supporters, though he had to stretch across from this side of the House, have told us that all the Dominions have asked for this, and I think the right hon. Gentleman nodded his head. But we ought to have, before the evening is out, something more specific than a nod, however Jovine. Is it true or is it not? We ought to know before the evening is out.
  I have one other thing to say, and it is by way of repetition, I am afraid, though perhaps that is what an unpremeditated peroration ought to be. It is this. None of us can foresee how nationality is going to develop in the immediate future. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, even those who are the least traditionally minded, will, I think, admit that if we want to foresee how a human society or concept is going to develop, we cannot, of course, reach omniscience or infallibility, but our best chance of making a reasonable guess is to look back and see how it has developed in the previous two, three, four, six or seven generations. If we look back at the development of nationality in this country, I think everybody will agree that the prin-

  463
  ciple of allegiance has been both the fruitful and the safe part of that story. I think, whatever else may be said about this Bill, it cannot be doubted that this Bill very much weakens that principle, and especially very much weakens two things—one, its matter-of-courseness, and, secondly, its capacity for development. That, I think, puts a very great weight of proof upon the Treasury Bench, and I submit that that burden of proof has not yet been discharged.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I hope the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the whole length of his argument, but I would prefer to pay attention to the more constructive speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who seemed to me to be alive to the position which confronts us today—namely, that the British Commonwealth is not something of a static nature but is constantly developing, and that we shall have to give full recognition to the people in the several Dominions. I thought his contribution was most helpful.
  In another regard I think the present proposals are a great advance on the position with which we find ourselves confronted in terms of legislation. We are told under this Bill that a British woman will not lose her citizenship on marrying an alien; with certain exceptions, she has lost it hitherto. The Bill restores that right, though she is married to an alien now. But an alien woman does not automatically acquire British nationality by marrying a British citizen. This is a matter for the discretion of the Home Secretary. I think that in sorting out these difficulties in respect of aliens, particularly the women, and also some of the difficulties which have arisen in respect of children born abroad out of wedlock and who have later been made legitimate, one finds some improvements in the proposals which are before us this evening.
  The point to which I wish to pay particular attention concerns one aspect which I have not heard discussed very much. Although I have searched the Bill I cannot find a reference to it, though it seems to me apposite to the subject of nationality. This Bill contains no provision against dual nationality. Some
  464
  people are opposed to dual nationality because of their war experience. In this connection I would mention the difficulties of, for example, the Anglo-Italians. When war broke out between us and Germany many of these Anglo-Italians hurried to sign declarations of alienage whereby they divested themselves of their British nationality and became Italians. Thus, they were neutral until Italy came into the war on the side of Germany, whereupon they were rightly interned as enemy aliens. They all stated that they were British by the accident of birth, having been born in this country of Italian parents. Other Anglo-Italians stuck to their dual nationality, but they still refused to fight for this country, in which many of them had lived most of their lives. My information is they were detained under Regulation 18B. Some of the Anglo-Italians so detained asked to be repatriated during the war. Then there were the Anglo-Germans who had a dual nationality. Of course, since the war was immediately with Germany those men, unlike the Anglo-Italians, did not have time to take out declarations of alienage. My information is that some of them certainly would have done so had they had the chance.
  I think that in the event of war, which we all hope will not happen, but the possibility of which we have to take into account, we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position in respect of the people holding dual nationality. Many of those people contracted out of the obligations to this country and they would have been glad to go back to their own country—in the case of those I have mentioned, back to Italy and Germany. The point I am making is that we can treat this giving of British nationality to aliens too lightly. I think British nationality is a great privilege. It is a thing which has great spiritual and other advantages which defy definition. I believe that we should be most careful to whom we give it. I hope that the Home Secretary, when he has the new powers under this Bill, will accept into our family as many desirable people as possible, but that he will have an eye to some of the points that have been made here today.
  We are told that British citizenship means freedom from the disabilities and restrictions which apply to aliens—freedom to enter or to leave the country at

  465
  any time; and a man who comes into this country as a British citizen may qualify for the franchise, and, I believe, can stand for Parliament and even become a member of the Privy Council, and even sail a British ship. We might get sentimental about this British nationality. It is not my duty tonight to become sentimental about British nationality, but I would say that we who have our roots in the soil of Britain are proud of our nationality, and are very jealous that it should be not lightly given away. That is not to say we are unmindful of the great contribution which men and women of other nations have made to the industry, the culture and the life of these Islands. I think, therefore, having examined the Bill as a layman, that there is much in it to commend it to the House; and I think that with the alterations which we propose to make in Committee it will be a great step forward in the constitutional evolution of this country.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Foster: Before I come to my main point, I should like to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. E. Davies) about double nationality. I ask him to suspend his judgment as to whether double nationality is or is not an advantage. I think he will find that during the last war the double nationality of British and American nationals was a great help in the war effort, and that the double nationals acted as a kind of unofficial representatives between Britain and America. If we are aiming at a greater communion between peoples, it is an advantage that they should be nationals of two countries at the same time. While I can see that there may be instances of people—though I think the hon. Member was unduly harsh about the Italian colony in England—who, when war comes, will want immediately to renounce their allegiance to England in order, probably, not to fight for either side, I think that those few instances do not outweigh the advantages of dual nationality. I ask the hon. Member to suspend his judgment until the matter is, perhaps, more fully discussed in Committee.
  I want to deal for a moment with the argument the Home Secretary put forward that we were in this Bill doing something more for the people in the Colonies.
  466
  I also want to deal with another argument put forward, that the opposition to this Bill is founded on the desire to impose the will of this country on the Dominions and to ask them to do something which they do not want to do. Both of those arguments are fallacious. At the present time the term "British subject" in this country includes everything which is included in the new term "citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies." I fail to see how, by restricting the "citizens," as we call them, of our Dominions by this Bill, we are helping the people of our Colonies. After this Bill has passed—I am assuming the Amendments of another place are rejected, and the old provisions put in again—after the Bill has passed thus, the citizen of Australia will be in a worse position than he is now, because he will not have the advantages—if there are any—of being a citizen of the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, it is answered to me that there is no difference between a citizen of the United Kingdom and a British subject in the United Kingdom, then the Bill is unnecessary. It is entirely unnecessary because, ex hypothesi, the two are the same.
  I cannot see how, by saying that the people in the Colonies, who are now British subjects and have every advantage, are to be called "citizens," we are advancing their case. We are not. But by distinguishing between Australians and New Zealanders in this country and restricting them, by putting upon them a technical difference—namely, that they will be Australian citizens, and, in order to become United Kingdom citizens, must fill up forms and make application to become United Kingdom citizens—we do not give an advantage to the people in the Colonies. We do not help them by placing restrictions upon Australians and New Zealanders.
  Let us examine the position as it will be on 1st January, 1949, if the Bill goes through with the Amendments of another place omitted. On 1st January, 1949, there will be United Kingdom and Colonies citizens, and then, because of this unnecessary distinction between United Kingdom citizens and British subjects, we shall find that there will be United Kingdom citizens dotted about among the Dominions—against their will—because the Bill provides that where

  467
  people are born British subjects in, say, Australia, and do not automatically become Australian citizens under their law, they become United Kingdom citizens. We also find people with double citizenship. We find a woman, born in England, married to somebody in Australia, and she will be both a United Kingdom citizen and an Australian citizen. All that is an unnecessary distinction.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want the greatest co-operation with the Dominions, but I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that the Dominions had been asked to do something which they did not want to do. The point is that it is entirely unnecessary, because of this distinction, to create United Kingdom citizens throughout the Dominions, and for United Kingdom citizens to be persons who are also Australian or South African citizens. The sensible thing to do, as is done in the Bill now without the Amendment of another place, is for the United Kingdom to regard all British subjects, that is, all citizens of other parts of the Dominions, as British subjects, enjoying the fullest rights in this country.
  In order to show that this is a distinction without a difference, the Attorney-General said to the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) that even if he were not a United Kingdom citizen he could stand for Parliament, vote and have all the advantages of a United Kingdom citizen in this country; so what is the point of saying to him, "You are now a British subject, the same as everyone else in this country who is a British subject, and, after this Bill is passed, you will not be a United Kingdom citizen but you will have the same advantages?" Surely, that is a distinction without a difference.
  It could not be required by the Dominions because they feel that we are imposing something on them which they do not want, because the Dominions will be free, after this Bill is passed, to diverge from us, just as they are free now. After this Bill is passed, a Dominion Government can pass a law saying that a certain class of people will not be citizens of that Dominion. If they are not citizens of that Dominion, they will not be British subjects, and will be eligible
  468
  to become citizens of the United Kingdom by virtue of their presence in the Dominion. They can diverge after the Bill and before the Bill, but we shall get the anomalous position after this Bill is passed in the form proposed that, because this Bill abolishes the universal conception of British subject by allegiance, we shall have people dotted about the Dominions who will not be citizens of the Dominions, and, therefore, there is the saving Clause in this Bill to make them United Kingdom citizens.
  To take the instance given by the hon. Member for Abingdon of an Indian in South Africa, the hon. Member assumed that South African law precluded that Indian from becoming a citizen of South Africa, and he was assured by the right hon. Gentleman that if that citizen was a citizen of India he would be a British subject by virtue of that. Let me assume that because of long residence outside India, that Indian is neither a citizen of South Africa nor a citizen of India; under this Bill he would be a citizen of the United Kingdom. The Government have to do that because they do not want to deprive him of his British nationality. He is still a British subject; but this is all an unnecessary complication. If they said that anyone who is now a British subject shall remain a British subject and added the Clause as it is now, that no one who is a British citizen of a Dominion shall be a British subject, then the whole scheme would be co-ordinated with the Dominions and we would not have to have this unnecessary "catchall" of making artificial United Kingdom citizens in the various Dominions.
  That is the disadvantage of this Bill, and it is unnecessary, because I think the Treasury Bench will probably agree that for practical purposes there is no difference between a United Kingdom citizen in this country and a British subject in this country. So why not merge the two conceptions, as in the Bill as at present drafted, and use the term "British subjects" in both cases? In case any Member has any doubt about my thesis, there will be United Kingdom citizens dotted all over the Dominions after this Bill is passed. I think that the rather complicated instance at the bottom of page 8 of the White Paper might be cited.
  A woman born in Canada of a father born in Australia who herself has married

  469
  a citizen of New Zealand and secondly married a citizen of South Africa will only become a citizen of the United Kingdom if she is not a citizen of any of those Dominions. She will be a citizen of the United Kingdom if she does not happen to be a citizen of any of those Dominions. She may have no connection with the United Kingdom. She may be born abroad or born in a Dominion and have no connection with the United Kingdom, but under the Bill—quite rightly as the Government have drafted it and have got into this position—once the Government's premise is admitted, they have to have this "catch-all" in order to preserve her British subjecthood.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he agrees with me, will correct the misconception which I believe has existed among the supporters of the Government when they appear to think that a citizen of a Dominion would not automatically be a British subject. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) said that under Clause 1 there were people all over the British Commonwealth who did not want to be British subjects; they would be citizens of dominions X or Y, but would not be British subjects. As I read Clause 1 anyone who is a citizen of any Dominion is, for United Kingdom purposes, a British subject. The people of Quebec the man in Ceylon, the revolutionary in Bombay—
  Mr. Ede: I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood the argument which I put forward. There are certain people who are not British by descent who feel it is anomalous now that they have achieved a nationhood, to be called British subjects. Many of them associate the word "subject" with being members of a subject race, and for those people who have an objection to the two words "British subject," the alternative of "Commonwealth citizen" has been provided. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, that the reintroduction of the word "citizen" at the stage when normally people are subjects is intended to meet the susceptibilities of certain people to the implication of the words "British subject," an implication which we in this country do not draw from those words.
  Mr. Foster: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think I should be right in saying that under Clause 1 (1) they have the status of "British subject."
  Mr. Ede: They have the status, but they need not call themselves "British subjects." If they like it better they can call themselves "Commonwealth citizens."
  Mr. Foster: I appreciate that, but it seems an awful lot of complication, to result, in the end, in this revolutionary Indian being told, "You have the status of a British subject but you need not call yourself that." I agree he can do so; but if he objects to being a British subject, he would equally object to having the status of a British subject. He would be a very subtle man if he said, "I hate the word 'British.' 'Subject' means a subject race, but I do not mind having the status of a British subject." If he objects to and hates the word "British" he does not want the status of British. If he dislikes the conception of being subject to anything, he also dislikes having the status of a subject. I cannot see that this man from Quebec would be satisfied, if he loathed the idea of "British subject" "so much, being well content to have the status of a British subject. But that is a matter of opinion which cannot really be argued; it is a matter of opinion on both sides.
  I do want to reinforce the argument which I have raised on the White Paper by showing that this creation of what I call artificial United Kingdom citizens would be unnecessary if we in this country, because we are the "catch-all" country—and that is the point; we are the country saying that British subjects in Australia and New Zealand do not lose their British subjecthood by local legislation—catch all who ought to have British subjecthood in that way, instead of a dual artificiality of having United Kingdom citizens created artificially, who then get through that gateway and stay British subjects. That, I think, is the difficulty the Government have got into.
  I should like to say one more thing on nationality on marriage. I agree with the provision that a British woman who marries an alien should not become a foreigner but I should like to ask the Home Secretary to consider at a later

  471
  stage, with regard to a woman who marries a British subject—although I see his argument for not allowing her to become a British subject automatically when she is still abroad—whether it is not wrong to give the Home Secretary complete discretion to exclude the wife of a British subject living in this country, or a wife who wants to come to this country, and whether he should not fetter his discretion by giving the woman who is refused leave to come to this country—because of perhaps some hearsay evidence on the part of the Home Secretary that she is a prostitute—an opportunity of appealing to some tribunal on the lines of the tribunal for the de-naturalisation proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman knows the tribunal to which I refer.
  I know that the Home Secretary has the liberty of the subject at heart, and while he may or may not think that tribunal is the best tribunal to decide these things, some kind of appeal to a body like that is very necessary, otherwise the Home Secretary, when he hears of the marriage of a British subject to a woman in a very obscure part of the world where there is a white slave trade carried on, may jump to the conclusion that that British subject has married the woman for the usual sum of £5 so that he may bring her to this country in order to enable her to ply her trade. In these circumstances, I hope the Home Secretary would feel that he should perhaps have some independent body to advise him, or to control his discretion. I hope he will consider that for what it is worth. I also hope, however, that the House, when it considers the Government Amendments, will reject any Amendments which seek to restore the Bill to the form in which it was originally introduced.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sure the House listened with a very great deal of interest to the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster); but I feel also that the House will agree with me in repudiating his expression, the "catchall" country, as applied to this country. We should much prefer to use Shakespeare's words about this England:
  "… that pale-fac'd shore
  Whose foot spurns back the ocean's roaring tides,
  And coops from other lands her islanders."
  472
  That is a much better way of describing what he calls the "catch-all" country.
  I do not propose, if the hon. Member will forgive me, to follow him into the labyrinthine argument he presented to the House. Rather would I say a few words about the very interesting, careful and detailed argument presented by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). So many aspects of his speech have been discussed in the course of the Debate that I propose to confine myself to one or two. He contrasted the Statute of Westminster with the present Bill for one express purpose. He did so for the purpose of showing that the Statute of Westminster had followed a long course of constitutional development in the British Empire and British Commonwealth of Nations. He went on to argue that this Bill does not follow any such long course of development. In fact, he said that it was wrong to bring forward this Bill at this time, just on the eve, as he said, of an Imperial or Commonwealth Conference; that it would be much better to postpone it until it was discussed at such a Conference.
  It is right to remind the House that this subject has been discussed at Imperial Conferences for at least 40 years. Being a lawyer, I like to rely on reported decisions, and I therefore want to refer the House to what happened at the Imperial Conference of 1911 when the Earl of Crewe, then Secretary of State for India, showed that this very topic was under discussion so far back as that time. He said:
  "I recognise fully—as His Majesty's Government fully recognise—… that as the Empire is constituted … nobody can attempt to dispute the rights of the self-governing Dominions to decide for themselves whom, in each case, they will admit as citizens of their respective Dominions."
  There we see in the year 1911 the idea as represented by the Earl of Crewe. I pass on to 1923, when we find General Smuts, at the Imperial Conference of that year, saying:
  "There is no equality of British citizenship throughout the Empire. On the contrary, there is every imaginable difference, and it is quite wrong for a British subject to claim equality of rights in any part of the Empire to which he has migrated, or where he happens to be living. Each constituent part of the Empire will settle for itself the nature and incidents of citizenship. The common kingship is the binding link between the parts of the Empire. It is not a source from

  473
  which private citizens will derive their rights. They will derive their rights from the authority of the State in which they live."
  The Home Secretary of that day replied:
  "Imperial nationality is indivisible. Local citizenship and the rights and privileges attached thereto may be diverse."
  In the same year, 1923, General Smuts again discussed this subject at the same Imperial Conference, and said:
  "There is no common equal British citizenship in the Empire … There is no indignity or affront at all in the denial of such equality … The newer conception of the British Empire as a smaller League of Nations, as a partnership of free and equal nations under a common hereditary Sovereign, involves an even further departure from the simple conception of a unitary citizenship. British citizenship has been variable in the past; it is bound to be even more so in the future … The composition and character and rights of its people will be the concern of each free and equal State of the Empire. It will not only regulate immigration from other parts of the Empire as well as from the outside world, but it will also settle the rights of its citizens as a matter of domestic concern."
  There were other Imperial Conferences in later years that discussed this topic and that have used the word "citizenship," which has been deprecated by the Opposition in the Debate here and in another place. That being so, I think the House will agree the suggestions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill is premature and that this discussion is premature are something which will not weigh with Members. His second point was that British citizenship is not a shackle. I think he must have put up that argument for the purpose of knocking it down. No one on this side has suggested anything of the kind. On the contrary, the Home Secretary today said that British citizenship and the term "British subject" are something to be proud of.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that there are five advantages of British citizenship which we are in danger of losing under this Bill. He said that citizens of different parts of the Empire would be unable to inter-marry with the same ease under this Bill. I can find nothing in the Bill to support any such argument. The second advantage he seemed to think would be imperiled by this Bill which he mentioned was when he spoke of the various component parts of the Commonwealth hitherto having been able to seek helpful association without let or hindrance. His third point was
  474
  that up to the present we have had free military association between the various parts of the Commonwealth. The fourth point was that the freedom we have enjoyed before this Bill was presented provides an open career for the people of the British Commonwealth as much at home as abroad. His fifth point was that British citizens in various parts of the Empire and Commonwealth can seek the assistance of British consulates in a way that will be difficult after this Bill has been passed. Since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech I have re-read the Bill, and I can find nothing in it which puts any of these rights in peril. I am inclined to think that here again he must have put up these arguments for the purpose of knocking them down.
  I pass from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which contained a great many critical points that have been dealt with by other Members in the course of the Debate, to say in closing that I welcome this Bill, that it is long overdue and that if enacted it will perform a very useful service; it will adjust the facts of the growing organism, the developing British Commonwealth of Nations, to the law as it should be today. A misunderstanding seems to have arisen in another place about this Bill which, when it was first presented, was described as a Bill:
  "To make provision for British nationality and for British citizenship in the United Kingdom and Colonies; and for purposes connected therewith."
  Now it appears before us with the reference to "British citizenship in the United Kingdom and Colonies" eliminated. That seems to be irrational, and, as the Home Secretary said in his opening speech, this omission spoils the Bill. I hope that the House, before it parts with this Bill, will see that that defect is cured, that it retains its pristine effectiveness and that it appears on the Statute Book in the more useful and workmanlike form in which it was originally presented.
  We must remember, in considering this question, that each component part of the British Commonwealth of Nations is to all intents and purposes an independent nation with many freedoms, including the right to secede from the Commonwealth if it chooses. It is worth while, on an occasion like this, to recall the official definition of the Dominions as being

  475
  "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by their common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth, of Nations."
  That being so, I think that this Bill is a most beneficent Measure, and I hope it will pass with the improvements I have suggested.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: The hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) has just made a quotation which includes two vitally important principles, which I hope he and other Members will not forget between now and the important Committee stage of this Bill. The first is that we in this country are equal in status with our partners in the Dominions, which infers that we have an equal right to legislate for our people and those immediately dependent upon us, as they have to legislate for their own people. The other principle we should not forget is, that with the immense diversity of people within the Commonwealth and Empire with whom we are dealing and especially the immense diversity of native peoples within the Colonies, the one thing that binds them together is the common allegiance with the Crown. I seriously beseech Members on both sides not to allow anything to be included in this Bill which might even on the surface or superficially appear to weaken that allegiance.
  To make my point a little more specific, it has not been an easy matter to keep together so many of the diverse and often primitive races of the world under the British flag. How has this been done? We have given them an easy conception, first, in the days of good Queen Victoria of a great Queen in a distant land, who would give them protection, who would give them prosperity, who no doubt would expect them to work in return, but whose subjects they were. It was in that way that we got loyalty and obedience from them. That simple conception has been handed down; and "British subject" has no doubt been translated into a hundred or more different languages. It means that, if we are to abandon that term and use a new term, even though there may be no equivalent
  476
  to be found in these languages, some other term than "British subject" will have to be found. I sympathise with and respect our friends in Canada for wishing to use the word "citizenship." I see no reason why they should not use that term; but, because they use it in regard to their people and particularly the French-Canadians, I do not think we should necessarily apply the same term to the diverse primitive peoples in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  May I now turn to another matter, which has not been mentioned in detail in this Debate or in Debates which took place in another place; and that is the position of British communities in parts of the world outside the British Empire. I do not know how many of such people there are, but there may be as many as half a million British people domiciled in different parts of the world. I know there are 30,000 of them in Egypt, a country which I know well, and I want to speak about these 30,000 people. They seem to me to be of three main types. The first are British in the full sense. Mostly British born, they are racially British and are recognisable as such. They speak English, and for the most part they are business people, who spend most of their working life there and come home to England when they retire. They have United Kingdom nationality, although they are Egyptian domiciled. We need not be troubled about them on this occasion. They can look after themselves.
  The second type with which we have to deal are those whom I would commend to the protection and sympathy of this House. They are the descendants of the British pioneers in Egypt, whose ancestors went there first at any time between the Battle of the Nile and the end of the British occupation in 1922. It was not the custom of their ancestors, nor was it practicable in the early days, to send the children home to school in England. Those early pioneers had to make their own lives in Egypt. They maintained themselves racially pure for several generations, and their families have spent their lives there. Their sons have enriched Egypt by their culture: the Cairo Museum was largely a British conception. They provided technical skill in the country; and above all they enriched it by their character and by their integrity.

  477
  They were found to be useful, and still are, by the Egyptian Government, particularly in the police force. Most of the senior officers in the police force are still British.
  Then there are those who are in the railways. I speak with some feeling on this subject, because my great grandfather was a British officer, who was told to go to Egypt to build the first railways there. He happened to marry twice and had nine children born in Egypt and the Lebanon. Mostly they stayed there and married British or other wives. His grandchildren and great grandchildren are now living there. They served in the British Forces during the war, but now they find themselves in a position of some difficulty. They are proud to call themselves British; but their roots have been for several generations in Egypt; and in Egypt today there is a growing xenophobia and they may find themselves without employment and oppressed. I should like to ask whoever is to reply on behalf of the Government, how this Bill will affect these people, because I feel we owe something to their ancestors. It seems to me that unless a wise and generous use is made of the power given under Clause 4, which is a discretionary power, harm may be done to those people. It would be of value to the House to know what policy we are going to expect; and, if we do not know the policy, we may have to move some Amendments in order to tie the Government down to some kind of policy.
  I come now to the third group of British people in Egypt. They are people of British nationality only on a technical view of the law. They have little or no British blood in them. They do not often speak English and they do not look English or, for that matter, Scottish, Irish or Welsh. They cannot claim to have served the King and the British people; and they have no real right to our protection. They are really the Don Pacificos of Egypt and of the other places in the Middle East where such people are found. They solemnly turn up at the British Consulate once a year to sign on as British subjects. I have no idea how some of them acquired British nationality, and I believe in many cases they do not know themselves.
  It is high time, in order that we do not cheapen this status of British subject, British citizen, or whatever it is going to be, that these people were put where
  478
  they belong and told where they belong. I should like to know what the position of those people will be under the Bill and whether the farce of their being called British is to be perpetuated. Again, this is a matter of policy, which can be narrowed down and tied down by the terms of the Bill. Reading Clause 4 (1, b) it seems that, unless something is done, this farce can be perpetuated from generation to generation, or for ever and ever, or until Parliament does something about it. As we are considering this very important and very great subject, I should have thought that this was a good opportunity for tidying these things up and, without any meanness on our part, for ensuring that the whole conception of British status will not be abused.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: A great deal of the discussion in this Debate has centred round the Amendments that were made in another place. As they have been discussed, and as the hour is late, I do not propose to deal with them now. Presumably they will come up for deliberation again at a later stage. I should prefer to turn to an aspect of the Bill which I do not think has yet been mentioned in this Debate.
  It happens that a substantial number of the residents of East Islington, which I have the honour to represent in this House, are British subjects by naturalisation, or are in the process of becoming British subjects by naturalisation. As the House knows, the Home Secretary has granted something like 30,000 certificates of British nationality during the last two or three years to people who were formerly German, Austrian, Czech, Polish, etc., and to many others who were stateless. I can testify to the joy, relief and gratitude which these people who have received for themselves and for their families certificates of British nationality have experienced when they have learned that they have acquired British nationality. I know with what patience over long years, and with what uncertainty, they have awaited the result of their applications to the Home Secretary, who, in his discretion, has had to decide whether or not in each particular case to grant the certificate of nationality. When, at long last, after waiting for two or three years and after being in this country perhaps for seven or even 10 years, these

  479
  applicants have received a letter intimating that their application has been accepted, I know that their lives have been literally transformed. These certificates of British nationality mean something very real. They acquire the rights of a British subject with immense and justifiable pride.
  When this Bill was introduced in another place the Lord Chancellor said that it would require the skill of an Athanasius to understand it. Listening to some of the Debate tonight I think we have travelled far beyond the realms of abstruse jurisprudence into the regions of metaphysics, in dealing with the question of citizenship of "the United Kingdom and Colonies," and with distinctions which exist without differences that it is easy to appreciate, but I would remind the House that there is a sense in which, to the large and important part of our people who get naturalised, British nationality means something very real and substantial. I am confident that this large and recent influx of alien blood, now admitted to British nationality will be rapidly absorbed and integrated in our community. They are anxious to acquire and assimilate the traditions and sentiments of our country. I mention this matter because I am very glad to see that the provisions with regard to naturalisation are perpetuated in the Bill, and that in one respect the conditions of eligibility are relaxed. While the qualifications as to residence, and service under the Crown are maintained, I am very glad to note, though it is only a small point, that an alien who has been in the service of the Sudan Government can now qualify for naturalisation.
  I would like to say a word on the question of married women. We have heard about the origin of this Bill. I listened with attention to the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other hon. Members opposite criticising the necessity for this Bill. Speaking for myself, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is necessary and desirable. It forms part of the natural evolution of the British Commonwealth and is one of the steps we have to take in order to bring the law of the country into conformity with the changes that have taken place in practice throughout the Commonwealth. However, I would agree with those hon.
  480
  Members from all parts of the House who have referred to the omission to publish the report of the expert committee which ha:, preceded the introduction of this Bill. In view of the fact that we all agree that this is a Bill of great constitutional importance, I hope that before we conclude our discussions on the Bill the Home Secretary will consider the desirability of publishing the report for the benefit of the House and the country so that all can understand the significance of this Bill and so that some of the misapprehensions that have been voiced may be removed. I would also urge that any communications which have been received from the Dominions asking us to introduce this Bill or making suggestions about it should be published.
  I would also ask the Home Secretary to publish the communications which have been received from the Government of Eire about this Bill, both with regard to the Bill as introduced into another place and the communications which, I understand from the Irish Press, have been received since the changes were made in another place. The House may know that there have been long and well documented articles in the Irish Press purporting to quote communications both from the De Valera Government or from the present Government of Eire with regard to their attitude towards this Bill. There have been hot debates in the Irish Parliament as to whether those reports are authentic or not. The matter has raised a great stir there. Hon. Members are entitled to know what is the attitude of the Irish Government on this matter.
  Be that as it may, this Bill should be welcomed and endorsed by this House if only for the reason that at long last it removes the sense of grievance and hardship from which British women who have married aliens have been suffering. I know of numerous cases of poignant suffering on the part of British women who lost their nationality by marriage to a German, an Italian, a Frenchman or some other foreigner, who thereby not only lost the privileges of British nationality and the right to vote, but during the war suffered considerable inconvenience and hardship through the loss of British protection. While I realise that the corollary of this change is that alien women should not automatically become British on marriage to a British subject,

  481
  I think the House is entitled to much more clarification than exists in the Bill at present as to the principles which will be applied by the Home Secretary in admitting foreign women to British nationality on their marriage to British subjects. We all understand that the reason, as given by the Home Secretary, for this provision in the Bill is to enable the Government to exclude from the privileges of British nationality certain number of alien women who come here either for scandalous and immoral purposes or as spies and who pay British subjects to marry them merely in order that they may qualify as British subjects. I agree that that is something which should be remedied, but we are entitled to see what are the consequences of the step which is being taken to remedy that grievance.
  I want to ask the Home Secretary to announce the principles that he will apply in considering applications by alien women who marry British subjects. Will there be any residence qualification before the application is considered? Are the same principles to be applied irrespective of whether the marriage takes place in this country or abroad? I would ask the House to note that a woman who in the future marries a British subject and does not receive a certificate of British nationality will suffer for the rest of her life under a great stigma and reproach—she will be branded either as being of questionable moral character or as having doubtful political affiliations. She will be classified and stigmatised as unworthy of British citizenship. Therefore that is a matter on which the House is entitled to have much more information than we have at present.
  In that connection, may I draw the attention of the House to this: that this is not a matter which ought to depend on any legal technicalities. We have heard a great deal in this country recently about the scandal of the 15 or 16 British wives who are detained by the Soviet Government in Soviet territory. We have made protest after protest to Soviet Russia to have those wives sent over here to join their husbands in this country because they are British subjects and ought to be with their husbands. I would ask the House to note that, when this Bill has become law, the situation will be that if those women in Russia had married British subjects, they might not
  482
  have become British at all However, I should hope that the indignation which has been aroused in this country by the attitude of the Soviet Government would not be regarded as resting upon the mere technicality that they are British subjects, but that in a similar situation protests would be based on the ground that it is contrary to the fundamental basic principles of human rights that husband and wife should be separated.
  That leads me to make the suggestion that the entire question of the nationality of married women is not merely a question for this country or indeed for the Commonwealth, but is a matter on which sooner or later I hope we shall have international agreement. Therefore, I would urge the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General, at the earliest convenient opportunity, to have the question of the international recognition of the status of married women raised on an international plane, preferably through the aegis of U.N.O. I must not detain the House longer, and I will conclude by saying that while we all endorse and welcome this Bill, for myself, I shall hope to make certain suggestions on the Committee stage.
  9.9 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I must admit, having listened to almost the entire Debate, that I still wonder what on earth this Bill is for. I do not think all the speeches I have heard have made that any more clear. Even the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has only produced one reason why it should have been introduced. I think there may be something in that one, and that is, the position of British women married to aliens. For the rest of it, what is the purpose of bringing in this Bill, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, at the end of a Session when the programme is admittedly overcrowded and the Government do not know how to push things through?
  I think that this is an effort to establish uniformity. I cannot believe that that is a desirable thing. I do not believe it is ever a desirable thing, except in very limited spheres of uniformity. When it has been attempted in history it has usually split either Christendom or Kingdoms into two. I do not think that the effort to make it

  483
  uniform throughout the British Empire will ever come to anything successful. We already have the status of "British subject," which means that that man or woman owes allegiance to the British Crown. That is the basis of the Empire and the Commonwealth and it will always remain so. It is established already and recognised in the words "British subject."
  It is of the utmost importance that we should realise how much allegiance to the British Crown means in these faraway places. I do not think it is fully realised how much it does mean. People who have lived overseas will vouch that it means an immense thing for a man to say he is a subject not of the British people, not of the British Empire, not of England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales, but that he is a subject of the King or the King-Emperor. That and nothing else is what has held, and will continue to hold, the Empire together. It is most unfortunate at this stage, when it is more important than ever before that the countries of the Empire should stand together in the face of the world today, that this disturbing matter should be brought into play when, I think, there is no reason whatsoever for it and none has been produced so far.
  I think it was the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) who mentioned how different today is the outlook upon Empire matters among the different parts of the Empire from what it was before the war and even before then. That is perfectly true. Every thinking person in any one of the Dominions, including this country of ours, must realise that the particular country to which he belongs, by itself in the world today, is a comparatively small thing and a very dangerously situated thing wherever it happens to be. But if we speak as an Empire, all speaking together, we are not small things at all—we are the greatest thing in the world today and, what is more, the best example of government in justice and in freedom that this world has ever known. These things are worth sticking to and at the summit, above everything else, stands the dignity of the British Crown, the cementing factor in this British Empire of ours today.
  It will be deplorable if this Bill is allowed to go through and in any way changes in any of the Dominions the fact
  484
  that a man or woman is a British subject—that is, a subject of the Crown. We must be very careful in dealing with the new Dominions. I entirely disagree with the Home Secretary in one thing—that there is any considerable body of people in, for instance, India, Pakistan or Ceylon who object to the words "British subject." There are certain ones, I quite agree, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not intending to say there were a great many—
  Mr. Ede: I did.
  Colonel Goanme-Duncan: Believe me, the type which does take exception to the words "British subject" is the rather frothy student type. We ought to realise that behind these student types—I am not saying that disrespectfully but everybody knows, in all countries, that students are the more excitable while they are students, however staid they may become later—are the people who object to the word "British subject" because they think, quite wrongly, it has something to do with subjection. It is nothing of the kind. We ought to make it perfectly clear that, if they wish to be Dominions within the great British Empire and Commonwealth, they must accept what we all believe and know to be a fact—that being a British subject implies no form of subjection at all in the way of repression.
  Mr. Blackburn: If that be so—and I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member—would it not be better to alter the word "subject" because the word "subject" must imply subjection?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No, because I think that the subjection, or recognition of the overlordship, of the Crown is the sole meaning of "British subject." If certain people in the British Empire outside this country do not realise that, it is our job to teach them that that is one of the privileges of being a Dominion in the great British Empire. I do not think we ought to alter this excellent rule in order to pander to those who have not quite reached those heights. Rather let them reach the heights and join us. They are a very small minority in any of the countries concerned.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) mentioned a certain community

  485
  of 30 odd thousand in Egypt. I have in mind another community which is on a bigger scale, known as the Anglo-Indian community which used to be called Eurasians. There are vast numbers of them in India and they are in an unhappy position. No one seems to want them. They are despised by the Indians and now there are few British left in India to support them. What will be their position if the Bill goes through as the Government desire it to go through? The same state of affairs obtains there as in Egypt and I hope we shall get a distinct statement of what will be the position in each of these unhappy situations if the Bill passes into law.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to reinforce a plea which has come not only from this side of the House; I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), who made similar criticisms to those that we on this side have tried to express. There are many interesting questions on which I could embark if there were time—for instance, the important proposals dealing with married women—but they can wait for the Committee stage. I merely say of them that I can assure the Home Secretary, as he must know already, that they are not uncontroversial.
  The Home Secretary quite rightly said that the Bill was of great constitutional importance. I am sure he and the Attorney-General would agree that, although the Bill is legally difficult, the main points of controversy are such that, if they are explained, they can be appreciated by people who are not lawyers. Those points are of the very first importance. Nearly everything which I could have said has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and in what I thought was a very forceful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster).
  One of the principal arguments put forward in good faith by the Home Secretary is really fallacious. He gave an example of an anomaly resulting from the Canadian Statute, namely that there was some discrepancy in the view of English and Canadian law about certain people who derived nationality from descent. I agree there
  486
  is that anomaly, but the right hon. Gentleman implied that if we passed this Bill there would be no risk of such an anomaly in the future. That is not the case. There will be exactly the same possibility of anomalies of that kind in the future unless the Dominions pass legislation in the precise form for which we hope.
  It may be that the Government are confident that they have an agreement to that effect, but, if that is the case, their security rests on the agreement, and not on the House passing this Bill. The tidiness the Home Secretary seeks will not be guaranteed by this Measure. The Home Secretary assumed that the Amendment made in another place by which British subjects in the United Kingdom and Colonies remain described as "British subjects" and not as "citizens" must be a bad Amendment and one which wrecks his Bill. I suggest that it is a good Amendment; but in any event it does not wreck his Bill.
  Let me give an example. I think I am right in saying that New Zealand has not yet legislated at all on these lines. Are the Government quite certain that, when the New Zealand Government come to legislate, they will not use the words "British subject of New Zealand"? I do not regard that as at all impossible. If they did use that phrase, it certainly would not wreck the scheme in any way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) may think he knows everything, but I was addressing myself to the Government, of which he is not yet a member. I wonder whether the Government are quite confident that the New Zealand Government, when they legislate, will not use such a phrase. If they did use such a phrase, could it possibly be said that it would wreck the scheme of the Bill as at present laid down—
  Mr. Blackburn: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to point out that New Zealand is a country which has been Socialist for 15 years. As a Socialist Government, the Government of New Zealand are most unlikely to be particularly addicted to a form of words which would attempt to perpetuate an idea of subjection to the Crown.
  Mr. Strauss: I am rather astonished that a gentleman who once held His

  487
  Majesty's commission should regard subjection to the Crown as an ignominious position. I yielded to the hon. Member because I thought that perhaps he had some observation to make relevant to an argument adduced in the course of the Debate.
  I hope that when the Attorney-General replies he will say whether he agrees, as I think he does, that this Measure gives no security against a repetition of the sort of anomaly which the Home Secretary gave as one of his reasons for the Bill. I hope he will also deal with the point that it is certainly not injurious to his Bill, and that it certainly has not been proved wrong in any way, for British subjects in the United Kingdom to retain that description. I hope that these matters will be considered by the Government and that they will be dealt with tonight.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: We have had an interesting Debate and a number of contributions, some more and some less illuminating than others, upon this highly complex subject of nationality. One cannot spend, as I did, nearly five years in the Home Office in time of war without learning at any rate some of the elements of this difficult problem. It is one upon which it is easy to see so many trees that one loses the wood, and in my short remarks this evening I will try to stick to what I think is the main point raised by this Bill.
  In 1943 it fell to my lot to introduce in this House the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill of that year, and although I have never quoted from one of my speeches before, on re-reading this one I found a sentiment so admirable and, no doubt, so aptly phrased by the advisers in the Home Office who now advise the present Home Secretary, that I cannot refrain from quoting a sentence or two from it to the House:
  "The conception of British nationality is based partly on common law and partly on Statute. The common code of law on this subject is one of the most important links which bind together the British Commonwealth of Nations, and in regard to any change in our nationality laws we attach, and shall continue to attach, the greatest importance to securing the assent of the self-governing Dominions; and, as hon. Members know, this is a subject which is almost invariably placed on the agenda when an Imperial conference takes place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1943; Vol. 387, c. 1258.]
  488
  Whether we like it or not, we must recognise that the passage of this Bill will mark the end of the era of the common code of nationality law within the British Commonwealth of Nations, and few, I think, can view that prospect with anything except a certain amount of foreboding and regret. From now onwards, if the hopes expressed in the White Paper are fulfilled, there will be a separate code of nationality law in each of the self-governing Dominions.
  Why, we ask ourselves on this side of the House, are we invited to pass this Bill at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, following upon the White Paper, attributed the necessity for this Bill to the passage of the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946. That may be a contributory reason, but it seems to me it surely cannot be an all-compelling reason because it is no less than 13 years—1935—since the Government of another Dominion, Southern Ireland, passed its own nationality law and laid it down that there should be a Southern Irish citizenship and that persons of Southern Ireland who became naturalised elsewhere should lose their Southern Irish nationality. Therefore, the Canadian Act of 1946 surely cannot be an all-compelling reason for the introduction of this Bill at the present time.
  It may well be a contributory cause, but what I should like to know in regard to the passage of the Canadian Act is this. The Home Secretary described to us quite fully in his speech this afternoon the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the Imperial Conferences of 1930 and 1937. I think we might have been told what was the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this proposal by the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian Government that they intended to enact their own citizenship law in 1946. We should like to have been assured that His Majesty's Government pointed out the effects of this proposal in the Canadian Parliament when it was first mooted—that is to say, September, 1945, two or three months after the present Government took office here—that they made some representations to the Canadian Government upon this question, and that they pointed out to the Canadian Government the serious effects of a departure from the common code which had been upheld throughout the Dominions hitherto by general consent.

  489
  I think we should also like to have been told whether any request was put forward to the Canadian Government to defer their proposals until a Conference of Empire Prime Ministers or Empire representatives could have been assembled. But we have not been told anything of the sort. It is baldly stated in the White Paper that Canada advised the United Kingdom that it found it desirable to introduce legislation. There appears to have been quite unilateral action by Canada upon this issue. We, of course, could not have prevented that occurring, but I do think that the British Government could have used their best endeavours to have secured some delay and some inter-Imperial consultation.
  Let us suppose that the common code is now irremediably destroyed. Then, I think, arises the second question: why are we proceeding with this Bill at this particular moment? It has been announced that the Dominion Prime Ministers are to meet in London in October of this year. The White Paper gives us some very vague statements upon the issue as to what legislation will be undertaken in the Dominions if we pass this Bill. Surely, it would have been better to have delayed the passage of this Bill until after the Dominion Prime Ministers had assembled in London? They will then be all round the table together. That, surely will be the time to get firm assurances as to the corresponding legislation which it is hoped will be introduced in the Dominion Parliaments? I should have thought that this was just the wrong moment to be pushing this Bill through the House. It would have been far better, and no harm whatever would have arisen, if this Bill had been delayed until next Session and introduced in November or December this year.
  I want to refer to a matter referred to by two hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, and that is that this Bill, which is of supreme constitutional importance, arises out of a conference of experts. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say today that that conference was presided over by Sir Alexander Maxwell. However, I am surprised—and hon. Members opposite, too, have expressed their surprise—that the report of this conference has never seen the light of day. Nobody knows what the report contained; nobody knows what was
  490
  agreed. So far as I am aware, whenever there has been an Imperial Conference in the past a report has eventually been published. I should have thought that, unless there is something to be hidden in this matter, we might have had a report from the conference, and that it should not have been left to the Government to tell us for the first time that agreement had been reached when they published the White Paper in February this year.
  This White Paper is, I think, a most admirable document. The law of British nationality is set out with extreme clarity in the Appendix. But there is an obscurity in the White Paper which I can hardly believe is accidental; and I ask the Attorney-General, when he comes to reply, to make this matter clear to the House. We are told in paragraph 5:
  "At the conference agreement was reached as to a general scheme which the representatives of each country were prepared … to submit to their respective governments for consideration."
  In paragraph 6 it is stated:
  "It is believed that legislation on the lines of this Bill will be acceptable to the other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth."
  I want to know whether it is a fact that the only matter which is agreed between the various members of the Commonwealth is Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the agreed common Clause; or does the White Paper say that the Dominions intend to pass Bills corresponding in virtually every detail to all the Clauses contained in the Bill now before the House. For example, are the Clauses and provisions relating to the nationality of married women agreed with the Dominions? Are they going to enact similar legislation to this respecting married women? Or take again the acquisition of British nationality by descent, jus sanguinis as opposed to jus soli, is it intended that the British Dominions overseas should introduce Clauses in their Bill such as Clauses 4 to 2 of this Bill, dealing with the acquisition of British nationality by descent?
  Are all these matters the subject of agreement with the Dominions, or is it merely that the Clause 1 which has been agreed is Clause 1 of the Bill, the Clause which enables each Dominion to make its own code of nationality law, and then to declare that its own citizens under that

  491
  law are British subjects, and for the recognition of such persons as British subjects throughout the Commonwealth? I think it should be clearly stated to the House whether agreement is really to Clause 1 of the Bill—what is called the agreed common Clause—or whether it extends to the whole scheme of the Bill, because it certainly appears from the phraseology of the White Paper that it is the scheme of legislation contained in the Bill which has been agreed with the Dominions and which is likely to be enacted throughout the Commonwealth.
  I pass from that subject to deal with a matter to which the Home Secretary devoted a great part of his speech this afternoon—the alterations which were made in the Bill in another place. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was making rather heavy weather of this question, and that he was anxious to disagree with the alterations in the Bill and to amend it accordingly in its passage through this House largely because of prejudice or a feeling of injured pride that a Bill of his should have been altered in any respect in another place. What do these Amendments amount to? They relate to two matters. The first is little more than a matter of phraseology. The Bill as it now comes to us contains the phrase in Clause 1:
  "Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall thereby have the status of a British subject."
  The right hon. Gentleman seeks to amend that so that the phrase becomes:
  "Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall by virtue of that citizenship be a British subject."
  It seems to me that that is little more than a matter of phraseology. We are undertaking, for ourselves and the Colonies, to create a citizenship of our own, separate from that of the other self-governing Dominions. It does seem to me, however, that "citizenship" is really an inappropriate word to use in this connection, for 'citizenship' surely denotes equal rights and equal obligations, and nobody taking even a casual glance at the British Colonies could for one moment imagine that it will be possible, for several generations, to introduce equal rights and equal obligations throughout them, or even in very many of them.
  492
  There are Colonies like Bermuda where there is a considerable degree of self-government; but even in Colonies like Bermuda there is nothing approaching equal citizenship. For example, there is a very strict property qualification for the franchise. When one gets to the African Colonies there are, of course, large numbers of people there who enjoy no civic rights at all at the present time, as we understand those words. It, therefore, does seem to me that this phrase "citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies" is an inappropriate one, and for this reason, in the main, we should like to retain the words "British subject," which we think much more apt for what we want to describe.
  I turn for a moment from that subject, which is little more than a matter of phraseology, to the provisions relating to Eire. In this regard I ask myself: is it really worth while making the change which the Bill proposes to make? Since 1935 Eire has had her own nationality law; she has not recognised her citizens as British subjects, but we have continued to do so. This anomaly has continued for 13 years, and in my experience it has not done anybody any harm. In point of fact, we know the tremendous contribution which Southern Ireland made to the war effort. I believe it to be true that more people from Southern Ireland volunteered to help this country than actually came from Ulster for that purpose. Of course, there is a considerable disparity in their populations, and it would not be in the least surprising were that the fact. But enormous numbers of people, being proud to be British subjects, came from Southern Ireland to help us in the war.
  I cannot see what we shall gain now by telling those people that they are British subjects no longer. What do we get by appeasing people who do not like us and betraying those who do? I cannot myself see that anything whatever is gained, except perhaps giving a certain amount of satisfaction and pleasure to a certain number of people in Southern Ireland who are not friendly disposed to us, by simply saying now, "Citizens of Southern Ireland will henceforward not be regarded as British subjects."
  For two or three moments I turn to another very important subject covered by the Bill, namely, the position of

  493
  married women. This is a matter of immense difficulty. Of course, there is bound to be conflict of loyalties wherever there are mixed marriages. It can be said, either that the nationality of a married couple shall be the same, or that each shall be free to retain his or her own nationality; but in either case there is bound to be a conflict of loyalties, and this is a matter of which I saw a tremendous lot during the war. These changes are now apparently to be made, and we want to be informed by the Government of the proposals regarding the nationality of children born of mixed marriages in the future.
  In the ordinary way, when an alien woman marries an Englishman, she will come to reside here, and the children being born here will be British subjects, but what is to happen in the obverse case, which is not an uncommon case at all, of the British woman who marries an alien and resides abroad? Under the Bill, she is to retain her British nationality. I think we ought to be told upon what principle the Home Secretary is going to work in deciding what the nationality of the children of such a marriage will be. There is a wide power under Clause 7, which gives the right hon. Gentleman more or less a carte blanche to register any child as a British citizen, or rather as a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies.
  "The Secretary of State may, in such special circumstances as he thinks fit, cause any minor to be registered as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
  The powers are absolutely unlimited. It has always been an outstanding difficulty, on this question of permitting married women to retain their nationality on marriage to aliens, as to what nationality the children of such marriages shall be. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be introducing this tremendous alteration in the law without having given careful thought to this problem.
  Let me end, as I began, by saying that the day of the common code will have gone when this Bill becomes law. No longer will birth within the King's Dominions and allegiance automatically confer the proud status of a British subject. For the future, each Dominion will decide for itself who will be its citizens and, by virtue of that citizenship, British subjects. It will be in future, as far as
  494
  I can see, a free-for-all, and unless there is local recognition as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen, which is the same thing, no one will be so recognised elsewhere. It may be that this is the only solution now available. It may be that there is no alternative if the appearance of concord and unity throughout the Commonwealth is to be preserved, but let no one imagine that this Bill does not mark an end of the chapter and a leap in the dark as far as concerns one of the most important of the links of sentiment which has bound us to our Dominions overseas.
  9.48 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): In the careful and moderate speech which he has made about this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) appeared to take the view that the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill—the key Clause of the Bill—really involve little more than a matter of words. That was not the view taken at the commencement of our discussion by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). Members opposite must decide on which of these two legs they intend to stand. Most Members opposite seemed to prefer the leg upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rested himself, and as the note he struck then has been re-echoed in a number of the subsequent speeches, I want first to deal with this matter from that point of view, although I shall endeavour to deal as faithfully as I can with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an eloquent speech upon the manifest and traditional advantages of the status of a British citizen. I, for my part, fully agree with that. But rhetorical flourishes about the glories of British nationality may lead to the impression that this Bill is going to alter all that. It does nothing of the kind. The fact that a person who is a citizen of a Commonwealth country will not also be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will not, as the law stands at present, deprive him of any of his existing rights at all. He will still continue to be a British subject; he will still be entitled if he so desires to stand for Parliament; he will still be eligible for membership of the

  495
  Privy Council; he will still be able to hold shares in a British ship; and he will still enjoy the countless other privileges which, under various previous statutes, are restricted to British subjects. As a British subject, who is at the same time a citizen of a Commonwealth country, he will be entitled to come here and enjoy precisely the same rights as he has previously enjoyed.
  Whether he will enjoy those rights in any other Commonwealth country is, of course, a matter which depends entirely on the Parliaments of other Commonwealth countries. We cannot lay that down; that is a matter for them. He will be a British subject in all Commonwealth countries, it will be for them to say what in their particular circumstances are the rights and privileges that they will attach to that status. As for our own country, I cannot, of course, bind future Parliaments as to what they may think right to do about this matter, but here as the metropolitan centre of the Commonwealth and the historical Motherland I hope that we shall always accord to the citizens of other Commonwealth countries the full rights and privileges that we are prepared to extend to our own citizens.
  This Bill does not alter the existing rights of existing British subjects. It does not destroy in the slightest degree the allegiance to a common Crown, which, we all agree, has undoubtedly been so important a tradition in the development of the Commonwealth. These things remain exactly as they were before. What this Bill seeks to do is to deal with the machinery by which the status of a British subject should be obtained in future, and subject always to the legislation which any particular Commonwealth Parliament may think it right to pass, the Bill retains and proceeds on the general principle that birth within a Commonwealth country will result in such persons becoming citizens of their own country, and through becoming citizens of their own country will become British subjects throughout the Commonwealth and throughout the world, owing allegiance to His Majesty the King just as British subjects owe it today.
  But—and this is one of the fallacies which underlay the very subtle speech of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster)—this Bill does not, of course, say that those who would in future
  496
  have become British subjects if the Bill had not been passed will become British subjects in future or will be "caught up"—I think that was the expression used—by the provision in the Bill, which provides transitionally that those who do not acquire citizenship of a Commonwealth country will be given the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and would thereby become British subjects. That applies to those who are British subjects at the present time. What will happen in future in regard to matters like the line of descent, application of the jus sanguinis and the jus soli, or other principles, will depend on the legislation of the different Commonwealth countries. Nor does it follow—this is another fallacy underlying that very interesting speech—that the status of citizenship, while it will not differ from that of a British subject in the United Kingdom and Colonies, will necessarily have the same incidents in the other Commonwealth countries. That, again, is entirely a matter for the Commonwealth countries to decide for themselves.
  Everybody in the course of our discussion today has agreed that one of the factors in maintaining the unity of the Commonwealth is the possession of a status, an acceptable common status, by all the members of the Commonwealth. The truth is—and if the right hon. Member for North Leeds did not expressly accept it, he did so by implication—that the system which has hitherto been in force, and which was intended to secure that unity of status, was, in theory, based upon the power of the British Parliament to legislate for the Dominions, as we called them then, as indeed we sought to do in the Nationality Act of 1914.
  That theory was quite inappropriate. It was inappropriate even at that time. As a matter of fact, the Dominions did not adopt Part II of the 1914 Act, as they had been intended to do, nor accept Parts I and III, as was contemplated. They chose to adopt, for quite good constitutional reasons, the different course of enacting their own statutes, largely but not entirely similar in terms to the 1914 Act, and not to apply the 1914 Act as a British statute which became obligatory upon them.
  Subsequently to that time, the whole system started to break down. After the

  497
  Statute of Westminster in 1931, the preservation of the common status depended upon agreement among the different Commonwealth countries and upon their all continuing to march in step; but they did not march in step. In 1933, the Parliament of New Zealand and the Parliament of Australia enacted that women marrying aliens might retain the right to be treated as British subjects in those Commonwealth countries, although, according to the ordinary law in the United Kingdom, they would then become aliens. In 1935, both countries passed further statutes dealing with the same kind of problem. Again, in 1935, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Parliament of Eire passed a statute which created an entirely separate law as to nationality. In 1937, at the Imperial Conference, General Hertzog expressed strongly the view, on behalf of South Africa, that some term other than that of British subject ought to be found to define the common status. Then, in 1945, the Government of Canada intimated to us their intention to pass an entirely new nationality law.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me what steps we took on receiving that intimation. I think it would not be proper for me to go further than to say that, as soon as we received the intimation, we made representations about the matter. We discussed the possibility of delay and the undesirability of unilateral action, and we went fully into the matter with the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada, as they were fully entitled to do, because they are a sovereign community, just as we are, decided in 1946 that it was right, as it were, to take the bit between their teeth and to proceed on the lines which they thought proper. They did proceed to make the drastic changes in their law of nationality about which we have heard.
  Then came the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1946. Very great play has been made with the fact that no formal Imperial Conference has taken place preceding the introduction of this Bill. I do not want to detract for a moment from the importance to be attached to the Imperial Conference. We listened to the very interesting and important comments made on the matter by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay). I must not attempt to follow him in discussing the future
  498
  shape which our arrangements with the other Commonwealth countries may take, but for my own part I hope that, whether by way of the Imperial Conference to which we have been used hitherto or by some other means, there will be increasing opportunities of consultation between the Governments of the different Commonwealth countries.
  However, it would be a very sorry day for the development and the future of co-operation in the Commonwealth if co-operation between the different Commonwealth countries in such a matter as this for adapting the structure of the Commonwealth as need arose were always to await the necessity for holding a formal Imperial Conference about it. That would be quite an impossible state of affairs. Here the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries met. They gave the matter careful consideration, they discussed all the principles which were involved and agreed upon them, and they then arranged, since this was an essentially technical and difficult matter, that there should be a conference of experts to work out the details. That conference met, and the recommendations and proposals which were arrived at were considered by each of the Commonwealth Governments. This Government and this House cannot attempt to bind the Parliaments of the different Commonwealth countries as to what legislation they may pass in implementation of the understanding which was reached, but I can at least say that we have no reason whatever to doubt that it is the intention of all the Commonwealth countries to deal with the matter.
  It is not the practice to negotiate with the sovereign countries of the Commonwealth as if they were contending litigants trying to negotiate some settlement in the county court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about having an enforceable agreement with the Commonwealth countries. That is not the way in which the affairs of this great Commonwealth are conducted. We had a full discussion. We had a complete understanding on the principles which were to be followed in the matter. Mr. Mackenzie King, Mr. Chifley, Field-Marshal Smuts and Mr. Walter Nash were here, and the matter was fully considered. The conference of experts was appointed to work out the details and the proposals were made.

  499
  I have been asked why we did not publish the report of the conference. The right hon. Gentleman who asked that question knows the answer very well. This was a conference of officials. It is not usual to publish reports of conferences of that kind. Moreover, this was a conference which reported not only to us but to all the Commonwealth countries. It was a joint report. It would not have been appropriate, quite apart from the point as to its official nature, for us to publish the report unless all the other Commonwealth countries were prepared to agree to it. As I indicated, it is not for me to say whether or not other sovereign legislatures of the Commonwealth will deal with this matter by legislation, but I can say that we have no reason whatever to doubt that legislation will be passed in the other Commonwealth countries and that it will be passed without delay. Indeed, I understand that such legislation has already been announced in the Parliament of New Zealand.
  It was put to me by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that there was some suggestion that in that legislation the term "British subject" was going to be used instead of the term "citizen of New Zealand." I can only say, because it would not be proper for me to purport to make any statement on behalf of the New Zealand Government, that we have made inquiries into the matter and that the information in our possession as a result of those inquiries does not bear out in the slightest degree that New Zealand or any other Commonwealth country proposes to adopt the expression "British subject" instead of the expression "citizen."
  Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that it has been mutually agreed between the Governments of the Dominions that the legislation shall follow a common form?
  The Attorney-General: I am coming to that point, which was raised by the right hon. Member for North Leeds. If the hon. Member does not mind, I would like to deal with it when I come to it a little more in its context. Before I come to that, I want to make one more general remark which seems to be appropriate here about our relations with the Commonwealth.
  500
  The noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—and I am sorry to have to make these comments in his absence but, as he explained to me, he unavoidably has to be elsewhere and I told him that I should have to make some reference to his speech—the noble Lord made what was, no doubt, a considered and what was certainly a characteristically deplorable, indeed, a reprehensible, speech. Fortunately, it is well known in this country that the views of the noble Lord have no special significance. I can only hope that it is equally well known abroad. I can only hope—and I express the hope without any great confidence—that during his self-imposed peregrination through the Commonwealth countries he did not do as much harm to the relations between the different Commonwealth countries as I fear he sought to do in the 10 minutes during which he addressed the House this evening. For my own part, I would regard it as a complete presumption and impertinence to question the right, as the noble Lord did, of the different Commonwealth Governments to speak for the people of those countries or to suggest that the action which they have taken in regard to these matters was not a proper action.
  I hope we can all agree in this House that the British Commonwealth of Nations is one of the most remarkable political organisations in the history of the world, and I myself profoundly believe that, within the United Nations, it can be the most powerful single factor for maintaining peace, for spreading culture and democracy throughout the world, and for promoting prosperity. But it can be that only if we accept it fully as a voluntary and living organism of nation States, each one of which enjoys absolute sovereignty along with the others, all of them pares inter pares. We do not promote that conception of the Commonwealth by mere lip-service, by flag-wagging, by what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in his more enlightened days, when he described faithfully the activities of the party to which he now belongs, referred to as "patriotism by the Imperial pint."
  We do not promote the conception that we want to have of the British Commonwealth if, at the same time, we seek to maintain a formal constitutional structure which has long since fallen into desuetude, and which is based on ideas of dominance

  501
  by the Imperial Parliament which, in fact, no longer exists.
  It might be very nice—I dare say it would—to maintain the existing forms with which we are familiar, but events march on and circumstances change. As the hon. Member for North-West Hull, who speaks with great experience about Commonwealth matters said, it is essential, if our structure is to hold together, that it should from time to time adapt itself to meet the realities of existing conditions. That is what we are trying to do in this Bill.
  It is not a question of the sensitiveness of the Commonwealth countries, as the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) suggested. As soon as we concede the right—which nobody can doubt—that each Commonwealth country has to legislate for itself who shall be its nationals, its citizens, its subjects, its ressortissantes, whichever term we may choose; as soon as we concede that right, as we all must, the problem arises of reconciling the local—or national—laws with regard to citizenship with those which relate to the common status in the Commonwealth as a whole, and it becomes necessary to differentiate between the two. The fundamental scheme of this Bill is that instead of the United Kingdom Parliament alone controlling who shall enter into the common status, which Members of all the Commonwealth countries ought equally to share, each Commonwealth country should control for its own people who should become its nationals and should pass through the doors to the Commonwealth status—the genus, the common status of Commonwealth citizenship.
  Once the method of reconciling the local status with the Commonwealth status has been accepted, the question becomes one of differentiating between the two. Then, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crowley) suggested, it may be to some extent a question of words. But not entirely. In dealing with the local status and with the Commonwealth status we are dealing with different conceptions which have distinct legal consequences and we must try to find some abstract term which is apt to describe them. Even if it were only a matter of words, we have seen from the Debate today that words can be important, even if they in no way affect legal rights; and if it is
  502
  important in this country, in some of the Commonwealth countries, and perhaps more particularly in the Colonies, the form of words may have an even greater significance attached to it.
  The term "British subject" is unfortunately not universally accepted, partly for sentimental reasons and partly, I think, owing to logical reasons. That is a pity. For our own part we want nothing better. We are proud to describe ourselves as "British subjects." We regard the term as the hallmark, the emblem, the very badge of liberty—and a liberty which we intend to preserve. But we must try to look at this matter not only through our own eyes but through the minds of the different peoples in the Commonwealth. To the minds of some of those people, perhaps impressed with the bad old days of British Imperialism, the term "British subject" conveys the idea of subjection to a foreign yoke. And, as my right hon. Friend indicated, the French settler in Canada, or the Dutch settler in South Africa, regards the term "British" as wholly inappropriate to describe his status, quite apart from the use of the word "subjection."
  I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan)—although, perhaps, what he said represents very much the view still held by some hon. Members opposite about our Colonial Empire—that if they do not like the phrase it is our job to teach them to like it. That is not our view. These countries are entitled—
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is not a matter of teaching them to like it, but of teaching them what it stands for and what it means, when they will automatically like it.
  The Attorney-General: That is a little different from what the hon. and gallant Member said. We have had a good many hundred years to teach them about that and in spite of teaching they do not like the phrase and are entitled to say so. Long before the word "subject" came in with feudalism, the term "citizen" was a recognised and honoured one. Cicero could say civis Romanus sum; that was true not only in Republican Rome but in Imperial Rome; and since that time, in all the countries of the world, "citizenship" has been recognised as

  503
  the appropriate term to describe a man's political and civic status. That is the term which we believe all the Commonwealth countries intend to use, or go on using. We cannot criticise their decision even if we would, and we propose for this purpose to use a similar term ourselves. Why not? It does not in any way alter the status of people in this country; it does not make us any the less British subjects.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Why not say so?
  The Attorney-General: We say so in express terms. It is said that citizenship is an inappropriate term to use in relation to what is geographically, socially and politically a rather heterogenous community at varying stages of development. That involves a profound misconception both as to the nature of citizenship and as to our relations with the colonial peoples. Citizenship—I am using the term in its broad sense as opposed to municipal citizenship—is related to the territorial area which is ultimately subject to a single sovereignty. The area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same. The Colonies are marching towards independence, but they are not yet sovereign. Ultimately they are subject to the sovereignty of this Parliament and the area of the sovereignty is therefore the area of the United Kingdom and our Colonies. That is coterminous with the area of citizenship.
  But, of course, within the area of the citizenship, the incidence which is attached to citizenship depends upon the exact geographical location of the citizen at the time. We are citizens of the United Kingdom, I suppose we should all agree about that, but my rights in Edinburgh may be different from my rights in London, or, if I go over to Belfast they may be different there. The burdens of citizenship in Nigeria may be very much lighter than the burdens of citizenship in Newcastle, but if someone comes from Nigeria to Newcastle, although his colour may be black, he will have exactly the same rights as any other citizen in Newcastle at that time. If I go to Nigeria I shall have the same rights over there. Whatever the incidents of citizenship may be in a particular part of the area involved, they devolve on all citizens, kind or colour apart. That is the basic principle as I have always understood it, on which
  504
  our Colonial Empire has been built up and no question of race or colour enters into it. That is fundamental.
  This Bill will not alter in the slightest degree the position of the various subjects of the King in the Colonies. They will remain exactly as they are and their allegiance and their duties and rights will remain just as they are at the moment, but, suiting words to realities, their status is going to be described, initially, as the status of citizenship. What an advantage it would be to describe them, not as citizens, but as British subjects, I am afraid I have not fully appreciated. When one looks at the way in which the Bill was amended in another place, and particularly at Clause 11 of the Bill as it has come down to us, one sees what complete nonsense has been made of the Bill by the attempt to retain the previous phrase. And if one looks at Clause 20 one finds that the very draftsmen who use the expression
  "British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
  are forced to use the term "citizenship" to describe the status of those very persons of whom they used that phrase, because it is the only apt and proper term. At the appropriate time we shall ask the House to amend the Bill back to its original form.
  I pass from that to refer to the question of Eire. As to the position of Eire, the matter is obviously one of difficulty and even delicacy, and I will not allow myself to be tempted into any general discussion of the constitutional relationship between this country and Eire at the present time. The United Kingdom Parliament has not, perhaps, always been very happy in its handling of our relationships with Eire, and I hope that on this occasion we shall at least avoid making some of the mistakes which have been made in this matter in the past.
  In 1935, as I reminded the House, Eire enacted her own nationality laws, as she was fully entitled to do, and she expressly provided that citizens of Eire could not at the same time become citizens of another country, and that if they did so become they would lose their Eire nationality. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at that time took up the position that they would not recognise the Eire Statute as affecting in any way the status of Eire citizens as British subjects.

  505
  In law they remained British subjects, and that was so decided. That led to a statement by Mr. de Valera about the position, and he said:
  "As tar as we are concerned the present Irish Constitution, the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1035, and the other Irish laws related thereto determine the national status of all persons born in Ireland or of Irish parentage. They define Irish citizenship in exact legal terms for all purposes, and for all parts of the world where our citizens reside, and conform fully to the principles laid down for the determination of nationality and citizenship in International Conventions, as well as to international custom and usage. No law of any other country can affect the status conferred by these laws, and if any purports to do so I can only say that such a law is quite inconsistent with the present international position of Ireland and with the international character of the relations now existing between Ireland and other States, including those States which are members of the British Commonwealth. In so far as the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, purports still to apply, or is applied by British courts, to Irish citizens today, it runs directly counter to all the recognised international principles governing such matters. The law which purports still to provide that every person who is born in Ireland becomes automatically and precisely by reason of that fact a citizen of another country, is contrary to all reason and commonsense."
  However unfortunate those words may have seemed at the time, and however harshly they may have fallen upon English ears, once we concede, as we are bound to concede, that Eire is a sovereign State, free like the other States in the Commonwealth to leave the Commonwealth if it chooses or to come back into the Commonwealth if it chooses, it seems to me that the statement made by Mr. de Valera is a correct statement of the legal and constitutional position. To say that all citizens of another country in the Commonwealth should be citizens of the United Kingdom as the metropolitan centre of the Commonwealth, may sound a very nice and pleasant and hospitable thing to do, but it is really quite out of our rôle as an equal member of the Commonwealth unless the other Commonwealth countries concerned agree.
  I believe there were some in America who regretted the American War of Independence and would have liked to remain British subjects; there may be such people over there still, but it would be quite inappropriate for us to pass a law providing that those people who once were British subjects, or their descendants, should remain British subjects under English law, and
  506
  it is equally inappropriate for us to attempt so to do in regard to Eire unless that country consents. To do so would infringe the sovereign status of a sister nation which is entitled to say what citizenship her countrymen should hold.
  They have said in Eire that their citizens must not have this dual status, they must not get the best of both worlds, they must choose. But whilst there is much in this Bill which the Government of Eire do not like, they have not dissented from the view that existing citizens who are British subjects may claim to retain that status without prejudicing their Irish citizenship. For the rest, all citizens of Eire will, without having the legal status of British subjects, in fact continue to enjoy in the United Kingdom all the rights and privileges of our own citizens, just as to some extent British subjects going to Eire, I believe, enjoy special privileges which are not afforded to aliens in that country. I quite understand the sentimental reasons which lead us to wish to retain for our citizens the status of British subjects, but to seek to do so in the face of the contrary view of the Government of that country would involve an affront which we are not really entitled to put upon them. It would be tantamount to treating that country as being a Dominion of the British Crown in the strict sense, which most certainly it is not.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The one provision in the Bill is that certain citizens of Eire can apply to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and thereby become, as I understand it, British subjects, or remain British subjects—at any rate, be British subjects; I will not beg the question. How does that square with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's expressed desire to fulfil every word of Mr. de Valera's pronouncement?
  The Attorney-General: I am not quite sure that I follow the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, nor did I express at any time a desire to fulfil every word of Mr. de Valera's pronouncement. I said, in terms, that that announcement might have fallen very harshly upon English ears, but it seemed to me to represent a correct statement of the legal and constitutional position. It was a position which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at that time were not prepared to

  507
  accept, and did not accept. At this time, we are seeking to reach a closer agreement with the Government of Eire with regard to this matter and we have adopted, in the Bill, provisions which may conduce to a better understanding in regard to it. I do not say for one moment that we have accepted the full position which Mr. de Valera indicated in the statement he made. In the way which we sometimes have in this country, we have sought to reach a compromise solution to this matter and I hope it may turn out to be a happy solution.
  We have just concluded, I think, a trade agreement with Eire, and we must hope that it will lead not only to an improvement in our material and economic relationships with that country, but that it will gradually improve the understanding between the two countries and gradually result in a greater appreciation of our common interests. We cannot meet the Government of Eire, as apparently the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested we might, on all the points in this Bill, but we must at least avoid doing anything which would form a manifest breach of the rules of comity which govern relations between nations of equal status.
  Sir R. Ross: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the point of Eire, perhaps I may ask him one question. First of all, I assume he is not purporting to reverse the decision in the case in 1945 that Eire citizens at that time were still British subjects. The second point is that he said it would be open for Eire to remain in or to leave the British Commonwealth. Surely the great importance in connection with the Bill is for him to say whether they have left it or are still in it?
  The Attorney-General: I am not going to be tempted to follow the hon. Member into the interesting constitutional problems which arise from the exact status of Eire at the present time, nor would I attempt to reverse the decision of the High Court in the case to which reference has been made. That decision stands as to the position under the then existing law. In future, the courts will administer the law as laid down in this Bill when, as I hope, this Bill is enacted by Parliament.
  Now I come to the point which was made about the nature of the legislation
  508
  which we expect to be passed by the different Commonwealth countries. We do not, of course, anticipate that they will necessarily pass Bills which in all their Clauses correspond with the Bill which we are presenting to this House. The whole purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth countries to decide for themselves exactly what should be the conditions and qualifications for citizenship and nationality in their own countries. Some of them may prefer to accept the jus soli, some the jus sanguinis. Some may prefer a combination of the two. It is entirely a matter for them in regard to which they are free to exercise their sovereign right.
  The understanding is that each Commonwealth country will provide by its own legislation who should be the citizens of that country, and having done that, should provide that those who are its citizens under its own legislation shall become British subjects; and that those who are British subjects because they have passed through the gateway of other Commonwealth countries shall be recognised throughout the Commonwealth as British subjects. That is all we are seeking to do by common agreement. Beyond that, it is for each country to decide for itself the local conditions which will decide the question of local citizenship.
  A point was raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in his important and constructive speech. He asked whether protected persons were made British subjects by the Bill. They are not. For certain purposes—not, I think, for all—they are not to be treated as aliens. If they apply for naturalisation as British subjects—and this is new—they are enabled to use a much simpler and quicker machinery for obtaining British nationality. I cannot, I am afraid, hope to deal with all the points raised during the discussion, most of which will have to be examined in the course of the Committee stage.
  Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question regarding Clause 6 and the children?
  The Attorney-General: The position regarding children will be this. Assuming that one of the parents is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the other parent is an alien, the nationality of that child will depend upon the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill. If the

  509
  child is born in this country, for instance, it will become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If its father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, although the mother is an alien, the child will also become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If, on the other hand, the child is born abroad, and one or other of the parents is an alien, it will be open to the Home Secretary, under Clause 6, I think, to register the child as a British subject.
  I apprehend, though I am not attempting to lay down any principle to govern the actions of my right hon. Friend in regard to the matter, that he will have regard to such circumstances as whether the father is connected in some way with the British Commonwealth of Nations and, in particular, with the United Kingdom; whether the family is coming to reside in the United Kingdom; whether the parent is in the service of the Crown, perhaps; whether the child is coming here to school; whether the child is being prepared for a career in this country. All sorts of considerations of that kind, differing greatly in different cases, will arise; and the Secretary of State will have discretion as to whether or not he should allow the child to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Failing registration, it would be open for such a child subsequently to apply for naturalisation in the ordinary procedure which is followed for naturalisation.
  Very much has been said on both sides of the House about the great value which we attach to our relations with the other Commonwealth countries, and, in my final remarks, I would like to return to that matter. It is right that great value should be attached to those relations. But nice words do not always obliterate nasty actions, and it would, without doubt, have been a very nasty action if we failed to carry this Bill in the form in which it was introduced in another place. It would have been a great dis-service to our Commonwealth relationships and the maintenance of the common tie between the Commonwealth countries if we departed from the scheme, adopted by the conference of experts in 1947.
  Of course, this Parliament is not bound by any decision which was made by that conference, but I do hope that we shall not content ourselves merely with giving expression to what are nothing more than
  510
  fulsome platitudes about the Commonwealth. I hope we shall proceed to give this Bill a Second Reading and thereby show that we maintain the intention of taking the lead we were expected to take, and that we shall implement the sensible and practical understanding reached by the Commonwealth countries in regard to the future of our common status.

  ARMY EXPENDITURE 1946–47
  Resolution, reported:
  Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1947, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £34,382,750 16s. 3d. namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  42,865,286

  15

  0

  Total Deficits

  8,482,535

  18

  9

  Net Surplus

  £34,382,750

  16

  3

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned.
  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 2487–88.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: I have one question to ask on this Resolution. In the Schedule under the heading No. 15, there is an amount getting on towards a million pounds—£820,537 to be exact—and—
  Mr. Speaker: This is only a matter of surplus details and that cannot be discussed on this Motion.
  Mr. Grimston: Can I be allowed to ask how the surplus has arisen?
  Mr. Speaker: This is of an accounting nature, and there can be no discussion on that. I have never known

  511
  any discussion on a Vote of this kind. The only question which can be asked is whether the surplus can be set off against the deficits, without any detail.
  Mr. Grimston: One cannot, then, inquire how the surplus has arisen?
  Mr. Speaker: No; that can never be done on this Motion.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL

    CLAUSE 13.—(Notification of particulars.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 35, at end, to insert:
    "Provided that any person being a parent or the guardian of a person of whom particulars have been so furnished shall be entitled, on application to the officer having the custody thereof, to examine those particulars in his presence, but shall not be entitled to receive or take copies thereof."
    Read a Second time.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman should move to agree with the Lords Amendment first, or whether I should first move my Amendment to the Lords Amendment which is on the Order Paper. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: To tell the honest truth I am not quite sure, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in doing so.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, to leave out from "particulars" to the end of the Lords Amendment.
    I should like to thank the Minister for bringing in these Amendments. This first Amendment is in line with all the promises which we exacted from him after some difficulty. He has met the point that we made. There are one or two further observations which I should like to make about this matter, having had some period to consider it since our Debate on 26th May. I fully agree that some words are used there which might be held to cover what this Amendment
    512
    seeks to do, but I will endeavour to show the right hon. Gentleman that the words which we wish to leave out do not in any way assist in arriving at the conclusion that the House wished when we discussed this matter on the Report stage, but rather they give what we might colloquially call a slap in the face to the idea of parenthood in the matter of children, which we are endeavouring to safeguard.
    The right hon. Gentleman will probably have seen the remarks in "The Times" Educational Supplement following the Debate here. I endeavoured to refresh my memory this afternoon by going into the Library to read what the Educational Supplement said, but I found that it had been extracted by someone else and no complete copy was available. I shall have to try to rely upon my memory as to what "The Times" Educational Supplement said, which was to the effect that, while the promise was satisfactory as far as it went, the matter needed to be closely watched to see that no retrograde step was taken when the matter was brought forward again. When we discussed the matter previously the House agreed that the most important person to be considered was the boy or girl, and next, the parent was not any less important than the youth employment officer. It seems to me that by being so meticulous in the words that have been used in the last line and a half of the Amendment moved in another place, we have placed the parent once again in a position which is below that of the youth employment officers in regard to the child.
    This matter is so important from a status point of view that I make no apology for discussing it at this late hour of the night. If the words are left in which we wish to leave out it will mean that in the opinion of the Government the parent only comes in as something of an afterthought, and he or she is not to be trusted like the youth employment officers and is only there, so to speak, on sufferance.
    Imagine what may happen if these words are carried to their full conclusion. The parent will make application to come to see the report which is in the hands of the youth employment officer. The youth employment officer is perhaps a very busy man. He has to be there all the time—"in his presence" it says—and must find the first available time for the parent to come to see him. It may

    513
    be some time ahead. The parent then arrives and it may be that during the discussions the youth employment officer is called to the telephone or to some other appointment. The report is to be locked up. The parent is not to be trusted with it alone. It is to be seen only in the presence of the youth employment officer, and if the parent produces a pen or pencil, and wishes to make notes the youth employment officer must say to him, "You are not allowed to do that. You are only allowed to read it, and not to make notes. You can memorise it and make notes afterwards, but in my presence you must not make any notes." The youth employment officer being a sensible man, as I know officials of the Ministry of Labour are, I would suggest, will not do this. But if he does not do this he will be breaking the law, and it puts him in a ridiculous position to be sitting there as a sort of superior person saying to a parent who has come there to discuss his own child with the officer, "You must not look at it if I am called out of the room for a moment. You are not to be entrusted with a copy to take away, or to make notes which you may take away." I suggest that the Government did not surely mean this, and I would go further and suggest how it has happened. I believe some of the Minister's advisers were not too happy at the Parliamentary Secretary accepting the spirit of the Amendment.
    I would remind the House that this is no party affair. This was pressure put upon the Government from all sides of the House from people who wished to see that the status of the parent was maintained in this matter, and that this House, Parliament, and this Bill should recognise that, where a boy or girl was concerned, the parent ought to have proper consideration. I would remind some hon. Members who were not here during the previous discussion that the Government's original proposal was that the master from the school should make a report to the youth employment officer and that it should not be made available to the parent at all, and after discussion the general opinion of the House was that this was absurd. The parent has a responsibility for the child at least equal—and I am putting this very moderately—with that of the youth employment officer, and should certainly see the schoolmaster's report. One hon. Member suggested that it might be embarrassing to the schoolmaster if the re-
    514
    port which he had made on the child was to be seen by the parent. No schoolmaster should make a report on a child which he is not prepared to show to the child's parent, if he be prepared to disclose it to a third party. Therefore, I do not think the schoolmaster enters into this discussion at all.
    We agreed that copies of the reports should neither be sent nor broadcast. We all want to see them regarded as confidential to the parent and to the youth employment officer; but the Government by this Amendment seem to think that although the youth employment officer can be trusted to keep these matters confidential the parent cannot. I object to that view. I say that if these words are left out there is still a complete confidential status kept in so far as anything can be kept confidential. We do not suggest that these reports should be sent through the post. We only suggest, and this I asked on the Report stage, that they should be made available on request to the parent if he comes to discuss them. The words used on Report were that they should be made available on request and, in another place, that they should be made available to the parent if he required them.
    If the right hon. Gentleman would accept our Amendment, which has the full support of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay)—I much regret that he could not be here for he was associated with us in the earlier discussion—it would make no difference whatever to what actually will happen, but it will remove the smear against the status of the parent by giving him an equal right at any rate with the youth employment officers to see the reports of the schoolmaster on his own boy. In these days we all know that one of the things which we must all foster is the home-life of the country and the parental control which has so largely been lost and the loss of which is the cause of the wave of juvenile delinquency all over the country. We must not derogate from the responsibility of the parent over his own boy or girl and I am sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Parliamentary Secretary wish to do so.
    I would suggest, in all seriousness, that the right hon. Gentleman's officials have been altogether too meticulous in granting the very minimum they possibly could—possibly, because they were annoyed that we pushed, and

    515
    the right hon. Gentleman agreed to go, so far. I would ask them, even if it is some inconvenience, to take this matter back to another place again and I realise that it is some inconvenience. I would ask them, nevertheless—and I ask in no party spirit, for I have regard to these matters due to my past associations—to remove these offending words, or at any rate the last lot of them, for they do to my mind, and to the minds of all those with whom I have discussed this matter, appear to be a direct hit at the status of the parent, obliging the parent to go as a suppliant to the youth employment officer in this respect. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman leave out the words that they must be in his physical presence all the time. The parent is not entitled to receive or take copies. The parent must not produce his fountain pen or take a copy of the report about his own son. It seems to me a monstrous idea and quite unnecessary. The confidential point will, as I say, be covered by the words of the rest of this Amendment if we leave out these other words.
    10.55 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought this Amendment forward, and should have so completely swallowed the words he used on the Report stage. We have given, exactly and precisely, what was then asked for and what was promised, and on that promise the proposal was then withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
    "I agree that we do not want these reports floating about and we do not want copies made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1948: Vol. 451, c. 236].
    Now he is telling us that we cannot trust the parents, we are too meticulous, we are making heavy weather—and all because we are in this Lords Amendment doing exactly what he asked us to do. He also said:
    "We also feel that it should apply for a limited period, and that when it has outlived its usefulness it should be destroyed and not hang as a millstone, possibly, round the neck of the boy or girl throughout his or her life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 11th May, 1948; c. 67.]
    The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) also urged very strongly—and we accepted it—that these reports should be destroyed at some given period.
    516
    For that reason we agreed that the reports should be restricted as closely as possible to the officers concerned, and should not be distributed around. We had a long discussion on the merits or demerits of this question. I do not propose to go over that Debate again. I am confining myself now to the request that was made and the promise that was given. I will only draw attention briefly to what was said by six hon. Members who took part in that Debate. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said they wanted the parents to have the advantage of seeing the document. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said that parents would request to see the report and say:
    "Can I have a look at the report?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 224.]
    The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said there was an absolute right to see a copy if the report was seen by the parent. The right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) said that it should be shown to the parent, and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury also said that the Committee could see what the child's parent could not. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) said that there must be the right to look up the document.
    All the way through there was a direct demand to see the document. At the end of it, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The parent should go to the Employment Officer or the headmaster or this meeting, and when he is there he should be allowed to know what is in the report. If the Minister would go that far, I should be with him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th may, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 236.]
    We have gone as far as that. My right hon. Friend, winding up the Debate, said:
    "I think it is agreed on both sides that copies of this report ought not to be made. At the moment the feeling of the House is that the information ought to be made known in the discussion. I undertake, if the Amendment is withdrawn, to give effect to that view before the Bill goes to another place, or in the regulations; that is, that when the parent is present at the interview all the information contained in the report shall be divulged to the parent in conversation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1948, Vol. 451, c. 236–7.]
    The hon. Member who was moving the Amendment said he thought the Debate had been useful and asked leave to withdraw it. We were asked to do a certain thing. We have done precisely that, and

    517
    we are asking the House to agree that it should be accepted. If the words that are proposed to be left out are left out, there will be such a wide open door that we shall not know where these reports are going to. It is not stated whether the reports should be examined in the Ministry's office or in the education office. If the parent says, "I want to examine that report" we have no power to say, "You must come here to examine it." He might even ask for it to be sent to him. I am sure that if a parent saw something in the report of which he wanted to make a note he could easily bear it in mind and write it down when he left the room: or he might say to the officer, "That is an interesting thing, a nice report about my youngster," and ask to make a note of it. I can see a great deal of difference between an officer allowing extracts to be made and what is proposed in this Amendment. What hon. Members are asking does open the door too wide.
    I have given my reasons for the rejection of the Amendment. I acted in good faith and gave the undertaking for which I was asked and that should be honoured.
    11.0 p.m.
    Commander Maitland: While there is a good deal of logic in what the right hon. Gentleman said, I want to support the Amendment for a slightly different reason. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the position of the parent. I should not like as a parent to see my duties so strictly written down as they are in the Lords Amendment as drafted. I think when we are considering one small Amendment to this Bill we are apt to forget the whole picture of what the Bill is about. This matter deals with what may happen at an entirely imaginary interview and the only point I want to make is this. I am very anxious that this Bill shall succeed and that the arrangements under it should be used to the best advantage of the boys and girls of this country, but the House must remember that it is entirely and solely up to the parents. We have to get the good will of the parents in order to make them use what is in this Bill and if we do not do that, then the Bill will not work. They will not go along and we shall not be able to make the mechanism of the Act function.
    518
    think that for the sake of the Bill it is worth while reconsidering these points and taking a bit of risk as to where the report may go. I am sure it would not be scattered about except possibly in a very few cases. In order to get the good will of the parents we should accept the Amendment that was suggested.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have adopted the attitude he has adopted, the more so as I fully recognise that he has made an attempt to meet the point which was urged from both sides of the House on the Report stage. Really, the right hon. Gentleman in his references to the requests made from this side of the House took what I must describe as a legalistic attitude. [Interruption.] I appreciate that hon. Members opposite will regard that as a very grave charge. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect, if other hon. Members do not, that at the time these requests were made the issue before the House was whether the parent should even have a glance at the reports. That was refused by the Bill as it then stood. No one, I think, would interpret "seeing the reports" as merely having a physical glance at them without the necessary facilities for making use of that sight. To comply with the request to see the report simply by giving a physical opportunity to see without any opportunity to make use of the information contained therein is, quite frankly, a legalistic attitude in the worst sense of the term. Perhaps by way of illustration I may remind hon. Members that when the late Herr Von Ribbentrop at last interviewed Sir Nevile Henderson just before the outbreak of war, he allowed Sir Nevile Henderson to see the terms which the German Government were offering to Poland in precisely the same way as the right hon. Gentleman is going to permit parents in this case. That is to say, the note was simply shown to him, and he was not allowed to make a note or to see it in the absence of Von Ribbentrop. This is just allowing him to see it in the same narrow sense.
    I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular to appreciate what this facility means. A parent is shown possibly a long report affecting vitally the future of his child. He may very well desire for many reasons—one being a

    519
    desire to correct a perhaps erroneous impression—to study that report carefully, and it is not easy to do so in the presence of a busy employment officer. Secondly, he may desire to make a note. Why should he not? Why should he not copy out a passage? What is the objection to a parent being allowed to do that? It is no answer to say that he has a right to see it, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is no objection, if he possesses the same fertile memory as the Minister of Labour, to his memorising it and going home and dictating it to his wife. All that is forbidden is writing down a part or the whole of it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate how exasperating a restriction of that kind could be to a parent who is seriously concerned about a report of vital importance to the whole future of his child. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the parent should be entitled to make a copy if he wishes.
    The Parliamenary Secretary at the earlier stage of the Bill did make a remark which is, I think, mentally connected with the narrow restriction in the present Amendment. He said:
    "Copies of these reports ought not to be floating about anywhere, and least of all to parents, who may not be as careful about what they do with them as they should be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1948: Vol. 451, c. 233.]
    That is a somewhat discourteous reflection on parents. It seems to ignore the fact, which is a fact whether he likes it or not, that after the child himself, the person most concerned is the parent, and that a parent's interest in this child is still not less than that of any Government Department, employment officer, or schoolmaster. I think it is a very serious suggestion to make.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice. If he recollects these discussions he will remember they followed on an Amendment which had been moved to deal with the destruction of the records, and if he carries his mind back to the Committee stage, he will find that the Committee were keen that the report should not hang like a millstone round the child's neck for the rest of its life. The Committee was so keen on this point that I felt I was carrying out the intention in insisting that no copies except the one should be about.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary may have had that in his mind, but what, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he was actually speaking to, was the Amendment of which the present Amendment is the fruit, enabling the parent to have a copy of this report available. He must not, when speaking to one Amendment, explain his speech by saying he was trying to speak to another. What I very much object to is, whatever Amendment he was speaking to, or thinking he was speaking to, that there is a perfectly clear implication in his words "least of all to parents who may not be as careful about what they do with them as they should be." There is the perfectly clear suggestion there that parents are not to be trusted with documents relating to their children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask hon. Members to read the hon. Gentleman's words—"least of all the parents."
    I do feel that it is just that attitude of mind which is behind the drafting of the present Lords Amendment before the House, which treats the parent not as a fair and equal partner, at the least, in the welfare of his child, but as someone to be kept at a distance, to be regarded by the Ministry of Labour as someone quite unsuitable, unreliable, and unfitted to take a full part in assisting his child. Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say, that is the impression which, I regret to say, is going out from this House, and will go out unless the Government are prepared to modify their attitude in this matter. We have not, after all, had from the Minister—we may yet have it from some occupant of the Treasury Bench—any justification of the restrictions imposed in the Lords Amendment upon the right of the parent. We have not been told what harm can be done by the parents being entitled to see these reports in the absence of the employment officer. We have not seen what harm can possibly be done by a parent being given or making a copy of these reports. We have not had the slightest justification of this restriction, and until we get such justification I am afraid that people will form that impression, that the reason is that expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in that passage of his speech that I quoted.
    I appeal to the Minister to think again about this. He is not going to get this extremely valuable reform developing as it should unless he gets the full

    521
    co-operation of the parents in this country. He will inevitably cause them to suspect that something is being kept back from them about their own children. He will inevitably, therefore, reduce that co-operation which all of us desire should be given in this scheme. I appeal to the Minister, who, I know, has the success of this scheme very much at heart, and who has taken a great deal of trouble about it, not to allow these few words at the end of the Lords Amendment to remain in. I appeal to him to appreciate, as I am sure he can, the ill-effect of leaving in those words and leaving the parents in this country subject to what my right hon. Friend so accurately called the "smear" which this imposes on them.
    11.13 p.m.
    Mr. Rankin: I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that those of us on this side of the House who resisted the original wording of the Bill are thoroughly satisfied that the Minister has met the promise which he made on the Third Reading. He stated perfectly clearly then that regulations would be introduced safeguarding the right of the parent—that is being done—and that within the Bill itself provision would be made to ensure that the particulars to be made available to the parents would not be scattered widespread, perhaps to do serious damage later on to the children concerned. Those two promises have been met. The Parliamentary Secretary has honoured the promise which he made on that occasion.
    11.14 p.m.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept our Amendment to the Lords Amendment. We think it would put the situation right. On the other hand, I did say at the outset of my remarks that I thanked the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary for doing what they have done. I do not think they have gone far enough, and regret they have not completely upheld the position of the parents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS FOUNDATION
  11.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move,
  "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 5949, which was presented to this House on 27th May, be approved."
  These estimates show an increase both in income and in expenditure. The income is, of course, largely uncontrollable. There is a decrease for instance of some £5,000 through conversion of stock. In general, there is nothing very much we can do to affect the size of the income. There is an exception, as hon. Members will note on page 6 of the accounts, where we have transferred a portion of the money from the Reade Foundation to Greenwich Hospital. This money has during past years been put to capital, but we thought that as in fact it is income we were entitled to transfer a certain amount of it to the income account while still adding to the capital of the fund by putting the greater amount of the income from this particular foundation into capital.
  With regard to expenditure, there is an increase in certain items due to the fact that we are now able to carry out a certain amount of repair work, particularly painting, which was necessary and might have been done before had circumstances allowed it. Another increase hon. Members will see is in the amount allocated for pensions. As a result of the Greenwich Hospital Act passed last year there are both more people now who are able to get pensions—the category has been widened—and the amount which can be given to each individual has been increased. We therefore thought it advisable to increase the sum for pensions by £2,000. But the main item of expenditure is on the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. Here hon. Members will see that the cost has gone up £3,400. This is mainly due to increase in prices, in salaries paid under the Burnham Scale and in rates. But the average cost per boy has gone down. It rose steadily from 1936 to 1946 but it has now begun to fall. In 1946 the cost per boy was £194. Last year it was £181; this year it is £165. It is not a great fall, but it is a definite fall, and is a movement in the right direction, In fact, I think this

  523
  has been, so far as the school is concerned, a good year.
  The new Management Committee has got down to work and we have the assistance of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). Generally speaking, we have managed to get this School on a very firm foundation. We have appointed a new headmaster—the gentleman who was previously acting as assistant headmaster—and we have appointed a new bursar. These new appointments have brought about, with others, a number of economies, and I should like to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and others, in bringing about reforms involving a saving of about £2,800 a year by discharging superfluous employees. We have increased the average number of boys from 534 in 1946–47 to 583 in 1947–48, and we estimate for 640 boys for next year. That is the maximum number which the Ministry of Education, as well as ourselves, consider appropriate for this type of school. We hope, therefore, that having reached this number we shall be in a different position from what we were in previously. In the past we wanted more boys than the number of applicants we received, but in the future we shall have more applicants than vacancies. The school, I hope, is at last on a firm foundation, and it has every right to be considered one of the best schools of its kind in the country.
  11.22 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Financial Secretary has added some information which we found to be lacking in reading the Estimates on the paper, and we are grateful to him. But, I am sorry to see the deficit which we prophesied from these benches last year has occurred this year although it is hidden by a transfer of £2,000 from the Reade Foundation. Perhaps I may deal first with the income side and go into details on points on which we should like to have an answer. I see that the revenue from estates in the North of England has dropped by £1,200. Comparing these Estimates of this year with those of last year, we find that the rents of land,
  524
  cottage property, and farms have gone up by £280, but sales of timber, at £1,300 for the year is only a little more than half the estimated income of £2,520. This is a big decrease, and I hope we shall have an explanation on this particular point. Also, on page 2, the estimated income by way of interest on 5¼ per cent. New South Wales inscribed stock has fallen by £1,497. Again can the Financial Secretary give us any information about this fall? On the same page there is an unexplained estimated income from "other receipts" which show an increase of £5,950. Quite obviously a sum like that plays a very large part in preventing expenditure overhauling income, but there is no explanation so far as I can find of what the receipts are, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will be good enough to tell us.
  When we turn to the expenditure side of the Estimates, we see that the amount that is to be spent on the estates in the North of England is less than last year. Salaries come to more, but expenditure on farms and buildings is to be less. In the Debate last year the Financial Secretary was warned from this side of the House that the expenditure on the estates would be likely to increase during this year, as, indeed, they have increased for all private landlords. I feel when private landlords are threatened with dispossession for not spending sufficient on maintenance and improvements, it is perhaps unfortunate, to say the least of it, that the State landlord gets away with spending less. These are times when the need for increased agricultural production has never been greater, and it is rather deplorable that instead of the Estimates showing a subsantial increase for maintenance and improvements, we actually see a decrease in these Estimates.
  When we come to the property at Greenwich, we see there is an increase in the estimated expenditure of £3,200 a year. I am sure the House will not cavil at this, but I should like to call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the tenants at Greenwich have obviously been more successful in squeezing maintenance grants out of the trustees than have the agricultural tenants in Berwick. I am sure that all sides of the House heard with satisfaction that there is an increased Estimate from £1,500 to £3,000 for the education of officers' children. The Financial Secretary will remember that we

  525
  on these Benches last year expressed the hope that this increase would take place. We also welcome wholeheartedly the proposed increase of £2,000 in special pensions for seamen.
  If I may be so bold in the presence of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), I should like to turn to the question of the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for the further information which he gave us tonight. I am particularly glad to see that the average cost per boy, which worried this House very much from year to year and which worried me when I was Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, has fallen on this occasion for the first time for many years. That is indeed very satisfactory. The Financial Secretary in his speech talked about the economies that have been brought about. They seem to come largely from the discharge of personnel, but in spite of that we have an increase in the estimated expenditure of £3,400. I remember the Financial Secretary's speech last year and today I re-read that speech to refresh my memory. In his speech he said that the Admiralty hoped to secure a bursar of such excellence that he would be able to effect considerable economies in the running of the school. I am glad that a bursar has been found and I wish him well. I do not know how long it is since he was appointed, but the fact remains that there is an increase in the estimated expenditure to the amount I have mentioned.
  I was also delighted to hear the tribute paid by the Financial Secretary to the committee on which there are representatives from both sides of the House. They are doing admirable work, and we thank them for it and wish them success in their efforts to create further improvements in the year that lies ahead. I agree that some economies have been made. Some of these economies are to my mind a little odd, but perhaps we shall get further enlightenment from the Minister. We learn that at the Royal Hospital School they saved £500 on provisions. I wonder whether it is food. I am very glad to hear of the increase in the number of boys but in view of this increase, the provisions and the food ration would appear to have been scaled down even more drastically than the present Estimates show. If it is not the case I hope the Parliamentary Secre-
  526
  tary will be able to assure us that this is so, otherwise the boys seem to be in for a dismal year. I doubt whether the boys will feel any recompense for the cutting down of food by knowing that there is an increase in medicines in the same column.
  There is a saving, again on page 5, in laundry at the Royal Hospital School. This saving is £150 in the present year. When I saw this petty economy I could hardly believe the Board of Admiralty was responsible. I began to wonder which Minister of the Crown had been tampering with Holbrook. I presumed it might have been the Minister of Fuel and Power with his well-known campaign against personal cleanliness, or possibly the President of the Board of Trade who wishes to establish in fact for the 1940's what he conjured up in his vivid imagination for the 1920's—a barefoot era for schoolboys. I would recommend to the Financial Secretary that the attention of the Lord President of the Council, the Socialist party "boss," should be drawn to this economy, because under the new classification laid down by the Minister of Health it is going to drive these boys willy-nilly into the Tory camp.
  If I may now pass to the Travers Foundation, I must say that we are getting a little uneasy about it. The estimated expenditure exceeds the estimated income by exactly the same amount as last year, and it is to be met once more out of surplus cash balance. What is this surplus cash balance, how much is it and how long will it last? The time is coming when there should be a thorough investigation into the whole question and I hope the Admiralty will decide to hold this inquiry in the coming year.
  These are all the points I wish to make on these Estimates. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give answers later in the Debate, but apart from these questions I think we have nothing more to say from this side of the House.
  11.34 p.m.
  Commander Pursey: This is the one opportunity in the year to deal with these accounts for Greenwich Hospital and the Royal Hospital School, which cost £1 million to build. The Parliamentary Secretary has drawn attention to the cost and to the increase in the number of boys. But his figures are not disclosed in the accounts because the

  527
  number of boys is given as 534 and the cost per boy £194. There is a note saying that the cost this year is likely to be £165, but certainly his other information does not tally with the statement before us. In 1939 the number of boys was 830. In 1943 there was the reorganisation of the school decided on as a result of the Bruntisfield report. There was a Debate in the House in 1944 when it was announced that it was decided to abolish the captain superintendent. The reason given was that with a captain superinintendent it was not possible to get a headmaster of sufficient standing to take on the job of headmaster. Well, of course, that does not stand up, because a similar position has always existed at Dartmouth College and other nautical training establishments.
  In April, 1944, it was decided to advertise for a new headmaster, and, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the appointment of the second headmaster, it is of interest to recall the relevant parts of the advertisement in the "Times Educational Supplement" of 8th April, 1944. It stated:
  "The school is a boarding school for those sons of seamen who desire to enter the Navy. It is the intention of the Board, while retaining the Naval bias of the school, to raise the standard of the education to the level of the best technical and secondary schools in England."
  Well, no one will disagree with that. But let us see what it said later on:
  "Candidature for the headmaster is restricted to (a) Naval officers who are university graduates with educational experience and (b) graduate schoolmasters who have served in the Navy."
  The salary was stated to be £1,250 to £1,500 according to qualifications and experience, a rent-free residence and certain minor perquisites which included a gardener and a boy.
  "The normal complement of the school is 860—reduced to 655 as a war-time measure—all boarders."
  At the end of 1944, a new headmaster was appointed. He was not a success and he left at the end of two years, so I have no criticism to make of him now. That was the first experience of the new scheme.
  In 1945 and 1946, when the accounts were presented to this House, the school was criticised and as a result an advisory committee was appointed. I have no criticism to make of them tonight, for what I have to say is entirely an
  528
  Admiralty responsibility. They advertised for another headmaster. The No. 2 master was appointed as "caretaker headmaster" and served for a year. Then at the end of last year it was decided to make his appointment permanent. There may be some advantage in that, particularly in this period of transition. He has been there two years as No. 2, and for a year on his own as caretaker-headmaster, and I understand that he is within two years of the retiring age and is, therefore, likely to go in two years.
  But what happened as regards salary? He was serving at a salary of £750. The post had previously been advertised at £1,250 to £1,500, and admittedly his predecessor was getting a higher sum, so the argument can be—that he is paid the rate for the job. But he gets £1,900 plus £250, plus a gardener and a boy. Well, this sounds to me like a coalmine manager's job prior to nationalisation. Surely he must have said when that decision was made, "Oh, what a beautiful morning," for the first time of seeing the Royal Hospital School. For, surely, in the educational world there can be few examples where a No. 2 master goes from £750 to over £2,000 for his total emoluments in one jump? But that is not what I am complaining about. It was the rate for the job. The question I put to the Parliament Secretary is this: "Where has this led the Admiralty." The 1943 decision was that they could not get a No. 1 headmaster with a captain-superintendent and therefore the captain-superintendent must go, and he went.
  The requirements needed in the headmaster, as given in the advertisement, were that he must have certain qualifications and naval experience. What has the Admiralty got now? The present headmaster came with the first headmaster as his No. 2. He had never served in charge of a school as headmaster, so that he would not have been considered for the post with the original list of applications, by virtue of his qualifications and the fact that he had not served in the Navy. So the Admiralty have now got a No. 2 man headmaster, having got rid of the captain superintendent, whereas they could have got a similar type of individual while still retaining the captain superintendent. Moreover, this headmaster served in the Army, not in the Navy, so we have a school with a naval bias with a headmaster who has been an Army officer. It

  529
  is the same as if the Army Duke of York's School had a headmaster who had been a lieutenant-commander in the Navy. If that farcical position existed, what would Field-Marshal Montgomery say if he went to the school for a function and was received by a headmaster in lieutenant-commander's uniform? It just does not make sense.
  Another point is that this school is in close proximity to the Naval Training Establishment at Shotley, and there should be a close tie-up between the heads of the two establishments. Then comes the question of the attitude of the headmaster as regards uniform. At British Legion and Old Boys' Association meetings, and so on, he appears in his uniform as a major. The majority of the other people are in naval uniform. So you have the position of the chief officer, who was previously the second-in-command, wearing uniform as a retired commander and senior to the headmaster whom he is serving under. I suggest this is quite farcical, and that the individual should not have been appointed, except as a temporary arrangement for the next two years, until he reaches the time for retirement.
  Now I come to the post of bursar. For 40 years or more, as I know, that post has been held by a retired paymaster-commander of long service. Private schools are keen to get similar types of officer for the post of bursar, and presumably therefore that should be the ideal type for a naval school. The last headmaster, when dealing with the personnel side, said quite openly in various places that they were out to clear up or clean out the naval element.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan): That is quite untrue.
  Commander Pursey: Whether it was the decision of the headmaster, or whether it was an Admiralty decision, it was decided that the bursar should go, and a new one has been appointed. One would have thought that when they wanted a new bursar they would have consulted the Paymaster Director-General, as the head of the Department and the Admiralty Civil Employment Committee, with the idea of getting a long-service naval officer. Admittedly they advertised the job, but the individual selected is a man from a bank. He is aged 36, and as far as I
  530
  know has had no experience of school work at all. If he has, I am quite prepared to be corrected. As regards naval service, he served with the R.N.V.R. during the war. I have no complaint to make about the R.N.V.R.; they did a good job in the war, but that is not long service. He got the rank of acting lieut.-commander (S) and then of acting commander (S), but that does not require much service in the R.N.V.R., and he knows little or nothing of the naval service that he can convey to other people, and particularly to the boys. There is no question, in my submission, that this post should have gone to a naval officer of long service; perhaps, if it was a question of keeping down the age, to one who had retired early.
  That is not the only point about the change. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about economies. What has been the result of this change? More expense. The previous bursar was paid £540 a year, though admittedly he had a naval pension. The new bursar is being paid £700, so there is an increase of £160. That, I suggest, is of little advantage to the school. In fact, it is another job which should have remained for the long service naval officer which has gone outside.
  The next officer to be considered is the chief officer. Previously, with the captain superintendent, he was the second-incommand. The complaint is that he is too old. He joined the Navy in the same year as I did, but being a cadet he would be a couple of years younger. That puts him just over 50. To say that somebody at 50 is too old is, I suggest, stretching that argument rather far. Moreover, the individual at the moment is short of staff and he has to take classes in the gymnasium. Consequently he must be physically active and cannot be complained of so far as physical capacity is concerned.
  There, again, private schools were keen to get this type of officer because he was a qualified physical training instructor. I have had no communication with him nor has he with me. I do not know the man, but I say that this is another case where it appears that there is a question of working the naval element out. It may be argued that he has been there since 1933, when the new school was opened at Holbrook, and so consequently he knew how it was run properly under the

  531
  captain superintendent, and may not fit in with the present scheme. What I am concerned about is that the man has not been given a proper chance to do his job since the captain superintendent left. His duties have been reduced and the staff has been reduced, and consequently his responsibility and standing have been reduced. Anyhow, he has to go. What I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary is, whether he is to be relieved and is there to be another chief officer, or whatever the title is to be? More particularly, what is to be the naval policy there?
  From the chief officer I pass to the naval instructors. At the old school the instructors lived in and the masters lived out. The instructors were with the boys 24 hours a day and were their "father confessors" to whom they brought all their troubles. When the new school started, certain duties were taken away from the instructors and they were handed over to the masters. Consequently the standing of the instructors went down. The masters are young: they have interests outside the school in the village and further afield, and have not the interest in the boys that the instructors had, but the school authorities complain that the instructors do not do their job and do not spend sufficient time there.
  The answer is that they are not allowed to carry out the duties they were previously allowed to do, and it is not fair to put the blame on them. Moreover, their numbers have been reduced. Before the war the number of instructors was 13, one for each of the houses, one for the gymnasium and one in charge. Now each house has about 50 boys and surely, if one instructor is looking after 50 boys, he has an ample job, particularly with turns of leave, when he has to be responsible for two houses. But again, there are duties which have been reduced. A particular example is the question of boat instruction, both boat sailing and boat pulling. Surely in a naval school such as this, those who are experienced in certain subjects should be teaching them; in other words, the naval instructors ought to be teaching boat instruction. But not at all. In this Harry Tate's school boat instruction has been transferred to the masters with the result that one amateur yachtsman and another who knew nothing about boat instruction at
  532
  all, are carrying it out. The consequence was that when this instruction changeover took place, boys who had been properly trained in boat pulling, instead of receiving the command, "Back starboard; give way port" were told to pull and push. One of the boys said to me, "We thought we were on a ruddy roundabout."
  That is not the whole of the story. We come to a far more dangerous thing—boat sailing. Masters go away sailing with boys who are not capable of handling a boat in an emergency. Only last year one put a boat ashore on the mud. It might be argued that we have all done that, but to show how they try to cover up their deficiencies, the boys had to wade ashore in the mud and the boat was left, the masters getting up at 2 a.m. under cover of darkness to get the boat afloat in order to keep the story quiet. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary telling me that this did not happen because I had this information from boys and other individuals who were there who know these stories are true. If he has not been able to pin the story down, it shows how clever they are in covering up their traces. The school and the Admiralty owe a duty to these boys, and if there is any question of loss of life due to an incompetent schoolmaster being in charge of a boat and it capsizes there will be a scandal of the first magnitude.
  For these and other reasons, those of us who have been watching this school closely for a number of years—and I was educated there myself—are convinced that the school has "touched bottom" from a naval point of view. There is nothing of the old school tradition which was a good one, with its large Old Boys' Association having a continuous interest in it. This second headmaster has no knowledge of the Navy, and little interest in it. Admittedly at last year's prize-giving he made a fulsome speech about the Navy, but one speech is not a good criterion for a year. The bursar has got little or no interest, and relieved a man who was interested in the boys, and who was a member of the yacht club. The chief officer is going, and his duties have largely gone. Who is going to be keen on such a job, as head of the naval department but responsible to an Army officer as headmaster in a naval school? The whole of the naval element, maybe including the

  533
  chaplain, are wondering what is going to happen, and who is going next. There is nothing worse than that.
  I say to the Admiralty that I can understand the argument if it is to abolish the whole of the naval element. Then there would be no reason for the Admiralty running the school at all, and it might just as well be handed over to the Ministry of Education. But, as I believe they still want recruits for the Navy and spend thousands on sea cadets, and three-quarters of the boys still join the Navy, presumably they still want to get boys from the school into the Navy. If so, the Parliamentary Secretary should say so quite definitely tonight, and say what naval element is to be retained, and what naval duties are to be performed by the naval staff. For instance, certain duties, which are quite clear-cut—boat instruction, swimming, gymnasium, parade ground, etc.—some of these are at the moment under naval instructors—should be cut off from the masters and handed over to the instructors and the chief officer. Even that will not provide a complete solution.
  During the four years since the decision to abolish the Captain Superintendent, I have maintained an independent attitude, and not been "pro" or "anti" captain superintendent. I have not said a word on the matter until tonight, one way or another. But I now say frankly, as one who knew the school before, that it will not be run properly from the naval point of view—and it is admittedly a school with a naval bias—until a new captain superintendent has been appointed. There have been over three years of the present scheme. There will be another two years, and there will then be a chance for the Admiralty to reconsider their decision to make this change. Then what will be required will be a proper naval staff no more than is required for the proper naval duties—to win back for the school again its reputation, its tradition, and the success it had before.
  The present Board of Admiralty are not responsible for the decision. It was made during the war. There is nothing political in this—except that the present Minister of Defence was then First Lord of the Admiralty. He may well reconsider the decision in the light of what is going on. My information is that when the change
  534
  was made the Sea Lords and the Naval Staff were practically all against it. What are the views of the present Naval Staff? Do the Sea Lords go down to the school? The last Second Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Arthur Power, went last year for the annual prize-giving. He is now Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean. But that one visit is not enough.
  Besides, it is necessary to visit the school on ordinary days as well as on speech days. Has the First Sea Lord, Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cunningham, been down to see the school? If not, in view of the speeches he is making at sea cadet meetings, and other meetings for recruiting, he ought to go to the school for which the Admiralty are responsible, and for which he, presumably, shares some responsibility, to see that it is properly run. Or is it the case that we have to wait until the next First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord Fraser, takes up his duties? Then, is he likely to appear in uniform on a horse, preceded by a marine on a horse, carrying his flag of St. George as an Admiral, as he did recently at a review on Southsea Common?
  I am grateful for what the Financial Secretary has said about increasing the number of boarders, which ought to have been increased long ago. What is also required is an increase in the numbers of the poorer type of boys, for whom the school was originally instituted in 1694.
  11.59 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I had not intended to intervene, but the hon. and gallant Member for East Hill (Commander Pursey) has brought me to my feet. I never can understand why he makes these speeches about the school. I think it must have something to do with that feeling which, I suppose, most of us have about our schools—that they have never been the same since we left them. However, most of us generally contain ourselves, and do not bring so much out into the open as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems always to do about his old school. I should like to say to him that I think his speech has done a great deal of harm to a school that is being extraordinarily well run, and which I hope and believe will continue to be so run, and for which the Management Committee, of which I acknowledge I am one, are trying to do their best. On the Management Committee we have the Parlia-

  535
  mentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who after all has quite a lot to do with the Navy, and every other single member of that committee has something directly to do with the Navy. The only member of the committee who has not is the headmaster, who was a soldier. I would simply like to say that I think that he is an extremely good headmaster. I think he has done magnificently in an extremely difficult time. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, he had to take over in an extremely difficult period in the school's history. I think he has done a first-rate job.
  Mr. Guy: During the discussions on the Estimates for 1946–47, a great deal was said about the setting up of the advisory committee. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary how many times the committee has met during the year, and whether any recommendations have been made. Further, have any of the recommendations made last year resulted in any of the economies which my hon. Friend has mentioned this evening.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Dugdale: If I may, with the leave of the House, reply, I would like to refer first to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy). The Management Committee—it is not an advisory Committee—has met, speaking offhand, on seven or eight occasions during the year. It does not give advice to be taken by someone else; it makes decisions which have been acted upon, as I hope was made clear in my original speech and will be made clearer by one or two of my answers.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), asked first about the revenue from the Northern Estates. There is a big decrease in revenue because of a reduction of the sales of timber. These sales obviously vary from year to year, and it happened that last year less timber was sold. With regard to the question of the change in the value of stocks, that is due to conversion, and has nothing to do with the Admiralty. It is the result of conversion of certain Australian Stock, which now bears a lower rate of interest than the previous stock bore.
  Regarding the questions on other receipts, the major item is a sum received for War Damage compensation from the
  536
  War Damage Commission, in respect of total loss claims. This is a non-recurring item. It is a windfall of £4,600 and will not recur. Regarding expenditure upon the Northern Estates, the hon. Member twitted us somewhat with not being as lavish in expenditure as a private landlord was, he said, expected to be. One point which I would like to bring to the hon. Member's notice is that £600 of the saving is due to savings at Middleton Park, which is now let. We do not, therefore, have to pay the wages of a gardener and a gamekeeper, so there is a saving on that. In fact, the net increase on repair and maintenance of the estates is up by £600. These sums are ludicrously small in comparison with most of the sums which we discuss in this House. Usually we are discussing thousands or millions where now we are discussing hundreds. The hon. Member asked, I think, about tree planting. We are, in fact, proceeding with the programme of afforestation in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, and we are taking the Commission's advice.
  Regarding Holbrook School, I will deal mainly with the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey). I would like to say, in the first place, and I say it quite categorically, that I am very sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I considered his speech was both irresponsible and mischievous. It was not calculated to do any good to the school, and if he has any influence, it will do harm to it; but, if I may say so, I do not think that his influence is such that his remarks will cause much harm.
  Commander Pursey: Can the Financial Secretary deny any of the statements which I made? If he can, I will withdraw them, but this is the place in which statements should be made, and it is his duty to deal with them.
  Mr. Dugdale: He refers to the school—a school in which he says he has an interest—as a Harry Tate school." Such a remark is not likely to benefit Holbrook; nor is it calculated to encourage boys to go to the school. Further, he claims that the figures which I gave are not correct. They can be found in the Estimates, and the figures are exactly as I have stated. He then referred to the headmaster's salary of £1,900, and said: "… plus an entertainment allowance." But the salary

  537
  includes the entertainment allowance. It is clearly stated on page 4 of the Estimates. He then complained that the headmaster was an Army officer. Since when are we to be ashamed of the fact that a man is an Army officer? Why should it be wrong for a man chosen for his qualities as a headmaster to have served also in the last war; as indeed many other schoolmasters did? He did his job during the war, but he was appointed because he happens to be a very good headmaster. My hon. Friend commented on his wearing military uniform. As to that, I can say that he were military uniform once at a parade, and he did so at the request of the British Legion.
  My hon. and gallant Friend then referred to the bursar. This gentleman, who my hon. Friend considers "unnaval" was the first recommendation of the Director-General of Supply and Secretariat Branch. He recommended him as the best of all the volunteers who came forward from his Branch of the Admiralty. It was considered that he was outstanding, and the work which he has done already shows that he is perfectly competent for the job, and that he was a thoroughly satisfactory choice.
  So far as the naval staff is concerned, my hon. Friend made some remarks about it being decided to "clean out the naval staff." At no time was it ever decided to do that. It is one of those remarks, among the many which were made, that is calculated to do harm to the school. We intend to appoint a new chief officer, and to remove those faults which we admit existed in some of the naval training. The standard will be improved so that the school shall be not only a good civilian school, but good in its naval training. It has shown itself in the past year to have made a decided improvement, and it is now a very good school.
  Resolved:
  "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1949, which was presented to this House on 27th May, be approved."

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. G. Brown.]
  12.10 a.m.
  Colonel Gamine-Duncan: In the absence of the English agricultural experts who, with the Minister, appear to be at the Royal Show, as the one Scottish Member on these benches, may I say that we welcome this Bill and consider that it is a very great improvement. It will help a great deal in securing fair agricultural wages and will simplify agreements made under the Bill.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Simmons.]

  COLONEL TASSOEV
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
  12.11 a.m.
  Mr. Bing: This is in some ways a unique occasion because it is only in very exceptional circumstances that we get the chance in this House to review and comment upon the work of those who really are our secret police though we often do not like to call them by that name. Whether or not these people are sane and sensible or foolish and romantic is rather more important than it used to be, for at the moment they can control the very livelihood of every liftman and every porter in the Air Ministry or indeed the livelihoods of any in any Ministry which may be affected with the same sort of purge mania. Therefore, this case of Colonel Tassoev is extremely important not only because of its foreign implications, but also because it exposes the abilities and the mentalities of those political doctors whose duty it is now and then to diagnose that particular. Japanese disease which is spreading amongst our Civil Service—dangerous thoughts.
  This Adjournment Debate affects the activities of three Departments—the Special Branch of Scotland Yard, which

  539
  is represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, M.I. 6, which I think is the actual Department concerned, and M.I. 5 which is the one which the public always blame. They are really one and are very closely interlocked as is shown by the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to speak for all three, and that that distinguished soldier, Sir Percy Sillitoe, who for so long has been associated with the Home Office, and is now a Director at the War Office, is in the United States conferring on foreign affairs with the State Department. Thus it will be seen that this is really an omnibus matter which I want to discuss.
  The facts are really quite simple. So far as they are admitted by both sides it seems that on 23rd April of this year Colonel Tassoev, who was an Inspector in the Soviet Military Administration in Germany, disappeared. The last thing known about him was that he was in company with a gentleman called Clem. There are no political connotations in that. He was an American officer, an official of the United States Administration in Bremen. Nothing further was known of Colonel Tassoev until on 6th May the Foreign Office through the official spokesman made a statement, and I will quote it as it appeared in "The Times," on Friday, 7th May. This is what it said:
  "There he met a friend and he decided to leave Bremen, and handed himself over to the British authorities with a view to obtaining permission to come to the United Kingdom. In accordance with the traditional British practice to give asylum to political refugees he has been accepted."
  We now know that on this very day Colonel Tassoev had been arrested and was confined in Hammersmith police station.
  My first question to the Under-Secretary is: Why were the Foreign Office: allowed to issue this statement that Colonel Tassoev had been given asylum in accordance with the traditional British practice? Frankly, if at this moment he was in prison is not this a cynical way of putting the position.
  It is now agreed by both sides that between 23rd April and 6th May he was staying in a flat, the property of the War Office, in Bishop Kings Road, Kensington. The Home Secretary said in answer to a Question on 17th June:
  540
  "He was temporarily accommodated in a flat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, I 7th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 70.]
  But thanks to the industry of the British Press we know it was a commodious place, a six-roomed affair kept by a certain Mrs. Wiggins and her 20 year old daughter, both of them employed by the War Office. According to the porter, Mr. W. Stockwell, who was interviewed by the "Daily Mail," the other inhabitants of the flat seemed to be a "cloak and dagger" brigade who were anxious that everyone, even the porter, should realise what secret business they were engaged on, for when answering the telephone in his presence they always replied "Military Intelligence speaking." According to other tenants of the flats below these gentlemen were in the habit of engaging in activities which can best be described as conviviality. These tenants said they heard "the noise of thumps and bumps as if these people were fighting amongst themselves." Except for the fact that everyone agrees that Colonel Tassoev stayed from 23rd or 24th April to 6th May at the Bishop Kings Road flat and that from 6th to 20th May he was imprisoned at the Hammersmith Police Station the stories put out by the British and Russian sides differ considerably.
  According to the answer given to the House by the Home Secretary Colonel Tassoev was an alien who had not been given permission to land and was, therefore, liable to be detained under the Aliens Act. That of course is contrary to the view put forward by the Foreign Office who gave the impression that he was entitled to land and was accepted in the traditional form as a refugee. It is also quite contrary to the political correspondent of our own Labour newspaper, the "Daily Herald," Mr. Ewer, who on 5th May, scooping both the Foreign Office and "The Times," explained that Colonel Tassoev had gone into hiding while his application to come to this country was being considered.
  According to the Home Secretary, Colonel Tassoev left this kindly household at Bishop Kings Road to go for a ride on a bus, and was thrown off the bus because he was not able to pay his fare. But if he was really a refugee, surely Mrs. Wiggins or Miss Betty Wiggins would have lent him a few pence for his fare. Is it suggested that having left the Soviet

  541
  Union as a refugee he did not take the precaution of bringing any money with him? Is it in accordance with traditional British hospitality to lend him a six-roomed flat and yet not make him an allowance of a couple of shillings pocket money?
  The question I want to ask my hon. friend is: Was Colonel Tassoev a guest or prisoner in this flat? Under what legal authority was he detained? How did he get into the country if formal leave to land was withheld? After all it is an offence to harbour anyone who is known to have entered illegally. Did his Department receive from Mrs. Wiggins, or any of her associates, information that an alien who had not been given permission to land, was being accommodated by them? If he did why did he not go and arrest him there and then? Why did he have to wait until Colonel Tassoev had left the flat? Is not the truth that Colonel Tassoev was there as a "ticket-of-leave man" to whom it was said "We will not pay any attention to the illegalities provided you stay in the flat"? If that was not the position, why are not proceedings being taken now against the people who brought Colonel Tassoev illegally into this country and hid him here? The matter is made much more remarkable by the breezy reply of the Foreign Secretary. Speaking on 9th June he said:
  "I get a lot of these cases of people wanting to escape to England. It is not a bad country to which to escape. I have to deal with these cases every day. … I cannot hold a prolonged inquiry into every case."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 2163.]
  Very well, let us accept that, but let us have a broad statement of principle. Of course, Britain is not a bad country to escape to if one can get a six-roomed flat and be looked after by Mrs. Wiggins and then get a free trip home. But to whom is this generous offer open? To everyone? Are these six-room flats to be at the disposal of every type of refugee? Just now, there is a political trial in Portugal—I am trying to introduce something which I hope will not offend my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). Suppose there are some Portuguese refugees, will they be accommodated?
  There are countries where persons of colour do not get all the rights of free citizens. If there is a deserter, a humble coloured private from the forces of such a country, will he be accommodated?
  542
  What if a general deserted from Franco's army? [An HON. MEMBER: And Marshal Tito."] I cannot go through every country that might be affected. I agree we should respect the right of asylum in this country. It is very valuable that we should have it. It was a pity in the past in the case of Spanish refugees and anti-Fascists of that sort it was not more widely used. But until our housing problem is solved, it will be a little difficult if every refugee is to be entitled to a six-roomed flat.
  We should have some clarification on this. Are we going to provide free accommodation to the deserters from all the forces of our late Allies? Perhaps we can be told a little bit more about what happened during those two weeks during which Colonel Tassoev was in the Hammersmith Police Station? When did he ask first to see the Soviet authorities? When were they first told he was here? And finally, so that we can follow this matter further, on what Votes are the costs of the various expenses involved in this affair borne.
  To sum up, the Government story is that Colonel Tassoev came here voluntarily, changed his mind and was therefore sent back. The only reason it was said why he was imprisoned was that he had not secured permission to land. Whatever the truth, that seems at any rate to be the most improbable story. If he came here voluntarily, how did not the immigration authorities at the Home Office know about it when he landed and how did the "Daily Herald" get hold of the story that he waited in Germany until his application was granted and why did the Foreign Office say that in accordance with the traditional British practice of asylum, he was given permission to come here. If he was given permission to land, if he was a political refugee, how was he wandering around London without money? If he wanted to go back to the Soviet Union why was he kept two weeks in Hammersmith Police Station? Colonel Tassoev's story is different from that, and contains a number of grave charges which everyone would be most unwilling to accept. But it is far more logical and coherent than the stories which up to now have been put forward by the Government. Perhaps there is a whole new theory which will be disclosed tonight to explain the whole thing away but, at the

  543
  moment, Colonel Tassoev's story requires a logical answer.
  He says he was kidnapped and taken to London in a plane, which, he was told, belonged to Field Marshal Montgomery. If that was so, it explains why he so easily passed the immigration authorities. He says he was imprisoned in the Bishop Kings Road flat. That would tally with the point that he had no money and was found riding in a bus, presumably trying to escape. He says he escaped into Olympia. That would tie up with the story in the "Daily Mail" that attendants at Olympia had noticed a foreigner who was shouting something, and who was taken away by the police. He says he was continually pressed at Hammersmith Police Station to sign a statement, and was beaten up when he did not do so. That last is difficult to believe, but it would explain the two weeks' detention.
  Unfortunately, in these Adjournment Debates we do not have at our disposal all the time we would like. But these are serious days. The future of the world depends on each of us doing our utmost to preserve peace. Whatever might happen in another war, it would certainly destroy this country completely. These are just the sort of incidents out of which international ill will grows, and which contain within themselves the seeds of another war. Nothing at the moment is more important than improving relations between this country and the Soviet Union. I hope when my hon. Friend replies he will do so in a sober way. If this is a misunderstanding it is a disagreeable one, and I hope he will exert his authority over the secret police and make certain that we do not have a competition in deserters from one side to the other. What we want now are better relations, not little scraps of information backed by a kidnapped and willing or half-willing individual.
  12.27 a.m.
  Mr. Blackburn: I share also many doubts about this incident. I believe the Front Bench is gravely to blame, because it should have produced, long ago, a comprehensive statement about it which would have made it perfectly clear what really happened to Colonel Tassoev. I am bound to say, on the other hand, that in my view it is quite inconceivable that
  544
  Colonel Tassoev has been brutally treated in this country. It is inconceivable that the implications made in the able and witty speech of my hon. Friend can be true, and I notice that he was not desirous of drawing those implications himself. But this is only one instance of a fundamental disability on the part of my own Front Bench, that they have some supporters who are prepared to tell the truth as they know it themselves, and to denounce Communist brutality.
  Today in Malaya the Governor-General, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, has spoken of the fact that there is a Communist attempt, a terrorist attempt, to substitute for government of the people, by the people, for the people, government of the people by murderers for murderers. That is what is occurring in Malaya, but if one asks the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any truth in the statement that there is Communist agitation, one gets no answer.
  The same situation occurs here. We do not mind which way the facts go. We want to know what the facts are. It matters not whether the facts go in favour of the Communists or against them. On the benches opposite, if the facts go in favour of the Communists they do not want to hear the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the benches on this side, in general, if the facts go it favour of the Communists they do not want to hear the facts. In my view, in general, people do not want to hear the facts unless the facts help one side or the other. It is vital that the facts should be stated by the Government, whichever way they go. I am now asking the Minister about this case, and saying that I am utterly dissatisfied with the Government version and begging the Government to tell the truth about the case of Colonel Tassoev.
  12.30 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am sure all those present at Question Time on the numerous occasions when questions were asked on this subject, as well as those who are here tonight, will agree that whatever else this story has done it has given a good time to quite a lot of people. I, alone, suffer from the handicap of having rather more information, and therefore I am rather less able to give free flight to my imagination than most of the people who have previously contributed to this story. The sources from which I draw my

  545
  information are perhaps more sober and less festive than the "Daily Mail"—a source from which I must say my hon. Friend would not normally get his information, nor would he give much credence to what he found there. He said he hoped I would produce a new version. I do not propose to produce a new version, but I hope to produce the connected statement for which many hon. Members have asked.
  May I start by referring to what my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). He said on 9th June that there were quite a lot of cases of people asking to be admitted to the United Kingdom—and that is indeed the case. Therefore, I would like to state what is the position of such persons under the Aliens Order, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the House that the Colonel Tassoev case was handled in exactly the same way in which the cases of these people are handled, and that the only abnormal feature of this case was the very curious behaviour of Colonel Tassoev himself. He changed his mind, a thing, I believe, which has not occurred in the case of any other refugee arriving here in similar circumstances.
  As the House knows, not every political refugee in Europe is able to come here just because he wishes to do so. Most hon. Members are familiar with the conditions on which people can come—through Ministry of Labour permits, in respect of compassionate reasons, etc. In addition to these, there are some limited classes who present themselves as political refugees to our representatives abroad in Europe. They claim that they have information to give which might be useful to us and they state their willingness to give it to us. Often it is much more convenient that they should give that information in the United Kingdom than at the point where they happen to present themselves to our representatives, and therefore there is some interest, on our side, in having them in this country. In such circumstances we know very little about them, except what they themselves say. We do not know what information they can or cannot give, and so, obviously, we are not prepared to accept them as prospective residents.
  When they are here it is preferable in their own interest that we should have some kind of control over them so that
  546
  at least we can be assured that, if necessary, they can be returned to the country from which they came. Under the Aliens Order this can perfectly appropriately be done. Under Article 1 (a) it is stated:
  "Aliens shall not land in the United Kingdom without leave of the Immigration Officer"
  and subsequently in Article 3 (4)—and that is the point which is of interest to us—
  "Where leave to land is refused to an alien, the alien may, with the leave of the Immigration Officer, be placed temporarily on shore and detained at some place approved by the Secretary of State."
  Therefore, one does get what seems a curious situation—that people are refused leave to land, but nevertheless are physically in this country, sometimes for quite a considerable time. Particularly, of course, during the war, there were many thousands who came here in this way unheralded and unforeseen and were put on shore and kept. Though it is anomalous in a sense to refuse to land them and then to land them, it is a freely recognised procedure under the Aliens Order. Places approved by the Secretary of State are various. They include police stations and a number of prisons, but obviously such accommodation would not be suitable for ostensibly friendly persons brought here to give us information in a purely voluntary manner. Therefore certain other accommodation of a better type is provided, and the premises referred to are such approved premises. That explains legally how a man in this position can be brought here, technically refused permission to land, and accommodated in such premises.
  Colonel Tassoev was, I believe, the head or a senior official of the Soviet Reparations Commission in Bremen, and on 23rd April he indicated unofficially to an American official that he would like to part from his own authorities. He stated his readiness to give information and come to the United Kingdom to give it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In writing?
  Mr. Younger: As far as I know there was nothing in writing, but I cannot say for certain. He did come to this country, and on arrival here he was refused leave to land under the procedure I have described. Meantime, by the time he got here, the Soviet accusations that he had been kidnapped had already been

  547
  published. It was obviously important that, if possible, these should be refuted, and he said that he would be willing to confront the Soviet authorities so that they should see that he had not been kidnapped. He was flown back to Germany, but when he got there—and this was the first of several occasions when he changed his mind—he was not willing to face his own authorities, and so was flown back within 48 hours, and was back under the same conditions.
  At that time, and for quite a long time afterwards, there was no reason to suppose that he was not what he claimed to be, a voluntary refugee coming to us, and willing to give us information. That was so right up to the moment when he walked out of the flat where he was accommodated, quite unexpectedly and unhindered, because he was not under any sort of close guard. He was there on refusal of leave to land, which did not give him the right to be at large, but it was not the same thing as being in a prison.
  I need not go into the details of what he says he did from the moment he walked out of the flat until he came within our control again. The story of Olympia which appears in his statement was given frequently in the Press. He was in a very excited state at Olympia. He was quite unintelligible to people. No one understood him except one Polish citizen, and it was not unnatural that the police should take him to Hammersmith Police Station to find out who he was. He was arrested on that occasion, and taken to the police station, and the authority on which he was detained was the refusal of leave to land, under the Aliens Order. He remained in an excited state for some time. The police succeeded in identifying him, and it was after that stage that he claimed that he wished to return to the Soviet authorities.
  Obviously this position was somewhat difficult in view of the mental condition in which he was. It was very uncertain what should be thought of him. He had already been here a fortnight, making no sort of protest, apparently perfectly content. He had been well treated. I should like to deny any suggestion that there was any ill-treatment. He was in very comfortable circumstances. It was uncertain, on the one hand, whether he
  548
  really wanted to go back, or whether he would change his mind again. It was a fairly risky decision, to say the least, on his part to go back to his own authorities, and I think we should not have been justified if we had instantly put him on a 'plane to take him back at that moment. We were not certain whether he really wanted to go back or would change his mind. His behaviour at Olympia showed he was in an unstable condition.
  On the other hand, there was the possibility that he had come in bad faith and never intended to give us any information. I think we were entitled to find out just what was behind it all. He was given a little time for reflection on his part and we had a little time for inquiry on ours. But when we were satisfied that he really wanted, for whatever reason, to go back to the Soviet authorities in Germany, it was decided that arrangements should be made to return him and to hand him over to the Soviet authorities. So far as we are concerned, that is the last we know of him.
  I should like to emphasise this. Colonel Tassoev contacted the United States authorities voluntarily. He came to the United Kingdom voluntarily. While here he was well treated, subject to no duress, let alone any form of violence. He was always in the care of persons operating under the due authority of Ministers. Had he not changed his mind his circumstances would have been just the same as those of other people who had come in this way and whose permanent situation has been regulated, and who have been allowed to stay here. It is not our fault that unfounded allegations have been made by interested sources in Germany, and that rumours have gone round. I think it is to the credit of the British authorities that, despite the risk of the capital that could thus be made by such interested sources, they placed no obstacle in the way of the return of Colonel Tassoev when he wanted to return.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjournd the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes to One o'Clock.

  POST OFFICE (PARCELS DELIVERY)
  POST OFFICE (PARCELS DELIVERY)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Anti-Locust Campaign
  Anti-Locust Campaign
  Export Duties
  Export Duties
  KENYA (INDIAN FARMERS)
  KENYA (INDIAN FARMERS)
  HONG KONG (STATUS)
  HONG KONG (STATUS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Officers' Widows (Pensions)
  Officers' Widows (Pensions)
  Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Headquarters, Pacific Fleet
  Headquarters, Pacific Fleet
  Reserve Commissions
  Reserve Commissions
  Dockyard Employees, Gibraltar (Allowances)
  Dockyard Employees, Gibraltar (Allowances)
  Hospital, Haslar (Dietician)
  Hospital, Haslar (Dietician)
  Dartmouth (Entry)
  Dartmouth (Entry)
  POLITICAL MEETINGS (SUNDAYS)
  POLITICAL MEETINGS (SUNDAYS)
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (WHITE PAPER)
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (WHITE PAPER)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TRANSFER OF ASSETS) REGULATIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TRANSFER OF ASSETS) REGULATIONS
HOUSING
  Solid Fuel Cookers
  Solid Fuel Cookers
  Community Centre, Hereford
  Community Centre, Hereford
  RIVER GIPPING (POLLUTION)
  RIVER GIPPING (POLLUTION)
  ROADMEN, BIRMINGHAM
  ROADMEN, BIRMINGHAM
  FATSTOCK SLAUGHTERING COSTS
  FATSTOCK SLAUGHTERING COSTS
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Rea—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in order to meet the general convenience we propose, after consultation through the usual channels, to meet to-morrow, Thursday, at 2 p.m. We shall adjourn at 3.45 and reassemble at 5.30. The usual dinner adjournment will be taken at 7.30 p.m. and the House will afterwards sit until 11 o'clock.

TERRITORIAL ARMY PREMISES.
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many applications have been received from Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations for compulsory purchase of buildings or land since War Office authority for this was given on April 21 last, and in how many cases this authority has been granted.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, six applications have been received, all of which are under consideration.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and would ask whether he does not think that the authority now granted to purchase will have a good effect on the system of negotiations conducted by Territorial Associations in the acquisition of their premises.
LORD PAKENHAM: I should hope that the noble Lord is correct. As he
438
knows, the War Office used their powers of compulsory acquisition under the Defence Acts of 1842 to 1935.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Arising further from the noble Lord's reply, will he consult his colleagues with a view to ensuring the minimum possible delay in dealing with applications now under consideration?
LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly consult my colleagues in. the sense indicated. The applications in question were received between June 1 and June 18.

STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government—(a) What was the strength, officers and other ranks, male and female, short-service and normal engagements of the regular Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force on the latest date for which this information is available; and (b) the numbers which have been recruited into each Service on short or normal engagements each month between March, 1947, and the date in (a) above.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence is proposing to publish at quarterly intervals a Statement of Defence Man-power, copies of which will be made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office. The information for which the noble Lord asks in the first part of his question can, with certain minor exceptions, be found in this Statement. I am sending him a copy of the first of the series. The answer to the second part of the question consists of a table of figures which, with your Lordships' permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, and I would ask whether he is aware that the Quarterly Statement of Defence Manpower will be very welcome.

Following is the table of figures reffered to:

RECRUITS ACCEPTED FOR THE ARMED FORCES, MARCH 1947–MARCH 1948.

1947. March.

April.

May.

June.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

1948. Jan.

Feb.

March.

ROYAL NAVY.

Permanent Commissions

25

26

105

40

15

12

136

67

15

11

112

23

10

Short Service Commissions

144

92

32

26

22

100

93

28

10

14

16

3

8

Total Officers accepted

169

118

137

66

37

112

229

95

25

25

128

26

18

Regular Engagements (excluding Bounty)

1,482

1,690

1,029

1,185

1,688

1,404

1,708

1,507

1,145

905

1,474

1,432

1,372

Bounty Engagements

470

614

428

435

411

263

217

264

169

147

127

154

119

Total ratings accepted

1,952

2,304

1,457

1,620

2,099

1,667

1,925

1,771

1,314

1,052

1,601

1,586

1,491

W.R.N.S. Intakes*—Officers

3

1

2

2

4

8

6

1

1

—

—

—

—

Ratings

386

251

458

286

231

222

284

297

339

308

216

197

153

ARMY.

Permanent Commissions

129

120

117

160

130

130

138

89

109

98

71

89

87

Short Service Commissions

306

214

244

177

333

165

194

141

89

53

69

49

83

Total Officers accepted

435

334

361

337

463

295

332

230

198

151

140

138

170

Regular Engagements (excluding Bounty)

2,448

2,403

1,981

2,159

2,182

1,994

2,858

2,616

2,155

1,701

2,346

2,308

1,898

Bounty Engagements

1,467

1,136

1,367

1,057

1,020

717

777

764

547

551

651

796

762

Total other ranks accepted

3,915

3,539

3,348

3,216

3,202

2,711

3,635

3,380

2,702

2,252

2,997

3,104

2,660

A.T.S. Recruits accepted—Officers

98

65

48

41

23

36

32

27

27

16

—

16

14

Other ranks

808

917

702

804

918

774

683

701

516

451

390

404

527

1947 March.

April.

May.

June.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

1948 Jan.

Feb.

March.

R.A.F.

Permanent Commissions

49

595

297

224

202

92

74

71

61

29

25

10

26

Short Service Commissions

197

314

667

787

998

366

654

563

568

554

280

207

227

Total Officers accepted

246

909

964

1,011

1,200

458

728

634

629

583

305

217

253

Regular Engagements (excluding Bounty)

2,705

2,158

2,441

2,035

1,333

997

954

1,856

802

526

829

1,242

649

Bounty Engagements

1,177

943

1,038

957

896

782

784

704

428

328

367

276

240

Total airmen accepted

3,882

3,101

3,479

2,992

2,229

1,779

1,738

2,560

1,230

854

1,196

1,518

889

W.A.A.F. recruits accepted:—

Officers

—

—

—

—

—

104

49

56

—

40

—

16

66

Airwomen

772

765

1,437

1,197

1,268

1,102

976

1,315

928

522

569

515

685

Note.—These figures include civilian recruits with or without previous service and those already serving who enter into Regular engagements.
* Recruits to the W.R.N.S. (Ratings) are subject to a short probationary period; there figures show the net intakes.

WARSHIP REPAIRS.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many of His Majesty's ships which have been sold or are about to be sold to foreign Powers are now undergoing repairs in His Majesty's dockyards.]
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, repairs to two of His Majesty's destroyers and one frigate which are being sold to foreign countries are in hand at His Majesty's Dockyard at Devonport.
LORD TEYNHAM: I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. Is he aware that these ships are taking up space which is urgently required for the repair and maintenance of ships of the Reserve Fleet?
VISCOUNT HALL: We are fully aware of that fact, but at the same time it is felt that to repair the other ships is rendering a service to the Governments who purchased them. Otherwise, probably, the ships would be scrapped. The question of possible interference with the refitting or repair of ships of the Reserve Fleet will always be taken into consideration.
LORD TEYNHAM: Arising out of the noble Viscount's further reply, would he see that such work in future is carried out by private contract, rather than by His Majesty's Dockyards, so that ships of the Reserve Fleet can be brought into the proper state of repair and efficiency in the shortest possible time?
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the noble Viscount aware that there is great congestion at the present time?
VISCOUNT HALL: There has to be a balance. For six years the merchant ships did not have anything like complete repair, and when I tell the noble Lord that in repair and conversion no less than 3,000,000 tons of shipping is in hand at one time, he will appreciate how difficult it is to distinguish between one and another. I can assure him that we are giving close attention to the repairs of the Reserve Fleet at the present time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EXETER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUDDERSFIELD) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MACCLESFIELD) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTHAMPTON) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEFFIELD) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOCKTON-ON-TEES) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHREWSBURY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

GAS BILL.
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Establishment and general functions of Area Boards.
1.—(1) There shall be established Boards, to be known by the names mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and in this Act referred to as "Area Boards", for the areas which are described in general terms in the second column of that Schedule and are to be defined by orders made under this Part of this Act, and it shall be the duty of every Area Board as from the vesting date

(a) to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply for their area;

445

(b) to develop and maintain the efficient, co-ordinated and economical production of coke by them.

(2) Every Area Board shall have power to carry on all such activities as it may appear to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the discharge of their duties under the preceding subsection or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested in them by or under this Act, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision,—
(e) after consultation with the Gas Council established under the next following section, to manufacture plant required by the Board or any other Area Board and to manufacture gas fittings and coke fittings, except for export.
(4) Every Area Board shall have power to do any thing and to enter into any transaction (whether or not involving the expenditure, the borrowing in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the lending of money, the acquisition of any property or rights or the disposal of any property or rights) which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the exercise or performance of any functions conferred or imposed on them by any enactment other than this subsection, or is incidental or conducive thereto.
(5) In carrying out any such measures of reorganisation and works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account, every Area Board shall act in accordance with a general programme settled by them from time to time with the approval of the Minister, and the Minister shall consult with the Gas Council before approving any such programme.
(8) Subject to and in accordance with any directions given by the Minister under section seven of this Act, every Area Board shall reduce, so far as practicable, the price of gas and coke and avoid undue preference in the supply of gas and coke.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) to satisfy at the lowest economical cost and subject to the provisions of this Act all reasonable demands for gas within their area."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises one of the most important principles in the Bill. The public are becoming alarmed at the serious rise of prices which has occurred in the various nationalised industries. It has occurred in coal and it is occurring also in electricity. I suggest that the acceptance of this Amendment would go a long way to reassure the gas-consuming public on this important matter of price. It may be argued by His
446
Majesty's Government that subsection (8) of this clause covers the points raised, but I would point out that it is hedged in by various considerations. The reduction of the price of gas appears to be subject to "any directions given by the Minister," and the Area Boards are to reduce prices only "so far as practicable" What do those words really mean? We maintain that that subsection does not go far enough and is vague and indirect. Surely the main object of this Bill is to produce a cheap supply of gas for the domestic consumer, as reasonably as possible. We maintain that that intention should be clearly set out in the Bill. I think it is true to say that there are over 4,000 trades and industries which are dependent upon a supply of gas. If the price of gas is to be increased, it will undoubtedly adversely affect our prices for many articles in the export trade. The high price of coal and electricity is already having that effect. When the trilogy of fuel and power is complete, we may well see yet a further restriction in our export trade owing to increases in the price of fuel.
There is another reason why this important principle should be clearly stated in the Bill. In the past there has been a feeling in the coal industry that the gas companies were getting their coal far too cheaply. The miners felt that the low price had an effect on the scheme for the ascertainment of their wages. I am all in favour of the miner getting a fair wage for a fair day's work, but it is possible that pressure may be brought to bear upon the Minister by coal mining interests to increase the price of gas so that the Coal Board may get more for their coal. It is not so much the words of subsection (8) or the words of this Amendment to which we attach great importance; it is to the principle that a cheap supply of gas should be supplied to as many people as reasonably possible, and that it should be clearly stated in the Bill that the duty of every Area Board is to carry out that principle as and from the vesting date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2 , line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I sympathise with the requirement of the noble Lord to have it made quite plain in the Bill that so far as it is economical to do so, it is fundamental

447
that the Area Board should supply gas as cheaply as possible. I think I can meet him. I would suggest that words such as the following should go in at page 2, line 4. The noble Lord will see there the words:
"to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply for their area"
I would suggest adding to those words something like the following:
"and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas within their area."
I think that those words would meet the substance of what the noble Lord has in mind. I will undertake to consider those words, and I will put down an Amendment on Report stage on those lines if that is satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his undertaking. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.44 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "coke" to insert "other than metallurgical coke." The noble Lord said: Clause 1 lays upon the Area Board certain obligations. Among others, your Lordships will see in paragraph (b) these words:
"to develop and maintain the efficient, co-ordinated and economical production of coke by them."
It does not lay down any specific type of coke. Your Lordships will be aware that there is more than one type of coke. There is coke which arises as a by-product to the gas industry, but that is a type of coke which is unsuitable for the smelting of ores except, I believe, in one or two very unusual instances. Then there is metallurgical coke, which is mentioned in my Amendment, which is the type of coke required for the smelting of ores and which arises, not as a by-product but as the principal product of the coke-oven plants, and is used in the steel industry. The gas that arises from those plants is used along with the blast furnace gas in the steel industry for steel making and finishing processes.
As the Bill stands at the moment, it seems to me that there is an obligation on the Area Boards to go into the development of coke-oven plants. Of course,
448
that is an industry which is entirely separate from the industry that we are discussing to-day in this Bill. I do not believe that when this Bill was framed, that was the intention of His Majesty's Government. I am strengthened in that view by the interpretation clause on page 84, which states what "gas undertakings" are. It specifically says that:
"the business of operating a coke-oven plant shall not be deemed to be a gas undertaking."
Therefore, what my Amendment does is to relieve the Area Boards of the obligation of developing coke-oven plants. On the other hand, it does not reduce their powers, and if there are any particular instances where that work is undertaken now or where it may be advisable in the future to produce this form of coke, there is nothing to restrict them in doing so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, after ("coke") insert ("other than metallurgical coke").—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not going to pose as an expert on metallurgical coke or any other sort of coke. I understand that what the noble Lord said is a fact. Therefore, I will accept this Amendment. When we get to the definition clause, we may have to consider more carefully what is the appropriate definition for "metallurgical coke," but I will accept this Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN had given Notice of an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
"provided that nothing in this section shall empower an Area Board to manufacture plant and fittings, or to sell, hire or supply gas plant."
The noble Viscount said: As this is the first time that I have spoken to your Lordships upon this Bill, perhaps I ought to say straight away that I have no financial interest of any kind in the gas industry. The Amendment that stands in my name is not quite correct as it is printed. There is a mistake for which I apologise. Its effect is to put the Amendment in the wrong place. With the permission of the Committee, and if the noble and learned Viscount agrees, I will move it in this form—namely, page 2, line 34, leave out

449
paragraph (e) and there insert the words printed on the Marshalled List.
The Amendments which are to be moved by my noble friend Lord Rochdale and myself are all founded on a certain number of main arguments and main principles. Although in certain well-defined cases we accept the principle of State trading, we do not acquiesce in it for the supply and distribution of gas; we draw a firm line between what we accept in principle and what I might call infiltrations into State trading, which seem to us to be permitted as the Bill now stands. We realise that there may be need for certain powers for the manufacture of gas equipment, and those powers are already given to the Gas Council by the clause at page 4 of the Bill. We are not going to contest that, because it is clear that there may be a need to manufacture certain kinds of equipment for home use only. Perhaps—and this point was made in another place—there ought to be certain provisions to prevent the possibility of a practice growing up to force up the price of gas appliances, which would react unfavourably on the price that the consumer would have to pay for the gas.
As I say, we do not quarrel with the provision allowing the Gas Council to manufacture; but when we come to the Area Boards, that is another matter. We see no reason why it should not be perfectly possible for the Gas Council to do all that is necessary, in the same way as is provided under the Electricity Bill. I am not talking about the locations in which the appliances should be manufactured, I am talking about control of the power to manufacture. Under those conditions, it would not be delegated to an Area Board but would reside in the Gas Council. Clearly, there are certain trades which are best left alone by the gas industry. There are those specialised trades like the drawing of pipes and various kinds of iron foundings. Once the Area Boards Kart on the slippery slope, so far as I can see there is no limit to the amount of manufacture that they may want to undertake—far beyond the scope of the gas industry, and perhaps far beyond anything that we imagine here, because every industry has its Empire builders and everywhere there is an urge for people to go just a little further. I believe most of the gas fittings are simple types of fittings which can be made by
450
a variety of firms. There is another aspect of this matter—namely, the export trade. It is perfectly clear that there is no permission granted in this Bill to the nationalised gas industry to make any fittings for export. But that is not the whole of the matter, because in these days, when export is difficult, the only basis upon which any firm can build up a satisfactory export trade is on a good hard core of home orders; and firms will not be able to carry on with their export if the nationalised gas industry may come in and take away the cream of the home orders. So to weigh up the matter, we propose to accept Clause 2 (3), which allows the Gas Council to manufacture, but we want to limit that power to the minimum. We think that this clause about which I am now speaking goes much too far, is far too wide. Although it allows for consultation it specifically does not provide the control which we think ought to be there. Therefore, in our opinion, it is far too dangerous as it stands, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (e) and insert the said provison.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite understand what the noble Lord has in mind, and I say quite frankly that I very much hope, and indeed I believe, that these Area Boards will never have to use this power. I think the circumstances in which they would want to use this power would be if they were being "squeezed," or if they anticipated that they might be "squeezed" by the trade. I am not making any aspersions that it has ever happened, but I am thinking of possible contingencies. If that did happen, or if they reasonably believed fiat it was going to happen, then I think they ought to have a means to protect themselves. And the best means of doing that is to give them the power themselves to manufacture, though not for export. I conceded this "not for export" principle in the Electricity Bill, if I remember rightly, and having conceded it there I am prepared to put it in here. I am prepared, if the noble Lord thinks it will in any way meet him, to put in some introductory words—I am not at the moment attempting to draft them, I am only sketching out what is in my mind—

451
to make this power conditional upon some such words as
"If they have reason to be dissatisfied with the existing facilities."
I am not quite certain that those words are right, because the Board might be satisfied for the moment. Therefore I want to consider those words. I suggest them, however, to make it plain that it is only in that event that this power should be exercised.
It is true that the Gas Council have this power, and of course this can be done only after consultation with the Gas Council. But I claim that one of the merits of the Bill (which owes much to the criticism of noble Lords opposite, and particularly of Lord Swinton) is that we secure a greater measure of decentralisation than we have had in the previous Bills. Therefore, claiming full credit for that, and conceding a share of the credit, I want these Gas Area Boards so far as possible to be autonomous. I do not want them to have to go round, hat in hand, each time to the centre before they do anything. As I said, I hope this power will never be used, except in the event of the sort of thing that I have indicated. Yet, for the reasons I have given, I want them to have the powers. If the noble Viscount would care to withdraw his Amendment, we might in collaboration think out a form of words on the lines I have indicated, to make it plain that this power is to be exercised only if there is present difficulty about getting supplies at a fair price, or if there is an apprehension that in the future that difficulty may arise. Unless the Gas, Boards obtain, at a fair and reasonable price, that which they want from the trade then I think it better that they should have this power. If the noble Viscount will agree, I shall be pleased to see him to try to agree some form of words before Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I make a suggestion that rather follows on what the Lord Chancellor has said? As this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, I should say that I have a connection with the gas industry and have been a director of a company for a number of years. I regret that I was not able to be present for the Second Reading, but perhaps I may say that I personally agree
452
with what the Lord Chancellor has said, that in respect of decentralisation and management there is a great improvement here on the Bills which we had last year. Coming back to the immediate point, I think there is a little difficulty, if I may say so, about the lines which the Lord Chancellor has suggested. While I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Bridge-man, in not wishing to set up the Area Board as plant manufacturers, the Amendment is not quite so straightforward as that, because it deals with both plant and fittings.
In the definitions in the Bill "fittings" are described as gas and coke fittings, and consumer apparatus—that is to say, cookers or heaters or piping in a house, which it is not at present the custom of the gas industry to manufacture, although they do purchase and retail them. On the other hand, the plant referred to must, I think, mean plant required by the Board for the purpose of the manufacture of gas. There is no definition in so many words of the term "gas plant" in the Bill. I would suggest that if the Bill went so far as to say that Area Boards could not manufacture plant without being satisfied that it was impossible to obtain such plant—I forget the phrase which the noble and learned Viscount used, but the effect of it was "under reasonable conditions," it might hamper quite a lot of minor operations. It is common in the industry to manufacture in the works small bits of plant and apparatus—as, for example, for distilling by-products or in connection with repairs, overhauls and alterations, which really could be said to be manufacturing. The main point in connection with plant, I think, is that Area Boards—and I suggest also the Gas Council—should not set themselves up in business as manufacturers in a big way of gas-manufacturing plant. At the same time, I think they must have the power and authority to help themselves out from time to time with relatively small pieces of apparatus which are most economically made at the works. It may well be that in many instances they can be made out of disused plant. This is particularly the case in the smaller concerns, and I think it will be a good many years before the smaller concerns are completely given up under this new arrangement. I hope the new Amendment which the Lord Chancellor is to propose will not be too restrictive, therefore, in this connection.

453
As regards fittings, it has never been the custom of the gas industry to manufacture fittings for supply to the public. That has been largely for the reason that the gas industry has never wanted to go into that business, and has never found it necessary to do so. Nor do I believe that it ever will be necessary. I should have thought the right thing to do would be to leave out any specific reference to the power of every Area Board or the Gas Council to manufacture gas and coke fittings. If such power was not quoted, for example in Clause 2 (2) (e), there would neither be an express prohibition on them from doing it nor any particular encouragement for them to do it, as there might be held to be if the clause were left as it is. I do not quite draw the same distinction which the noble Viscount. Lord Bridgeman, has drawn. It must be remembered, when giving powers to Area Boards and the Gas Council, that Area Boards are going to be fairly large concerns. If there is any manufacturing to be done, which one hopes will not be necessary in a big way, I should think the Area Boards will be big enough and important enough to undertake their own. I agree that to have that power does put them in a much stronger position as regards running their own business. I would suggest that some form of words might be devised which would give Area Boards the power to manufacture certain pieces of plant, while not giving them the power to go into the manufacture of gas-making plant in a big way. I would not like, myself, to suggest the form of the words, but no doubt the noble and learned Viscount, if he goes into it in the light of our discussion, will be able to devise an Amendment which will meet the case.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think we have all reason to be glad that we again have the benefit of the knowledge and experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in dealing with this Bill. He was invaluable to us on some of the earlier Bills. The fact that people have had an interest in a concern, and have managed it well, is certainly no bar to their taking part in our discussions—and that is a very good thing. If these matters had to he discussed entirely by people who were, so to speak, virgins, we should not be likely to get very great results. I am sure that the point which Lord Ridley has so rightly raised can be met. Clearly, every
454
business has got to have its own small workshop. You cannot be held up every time you need a small item of plant which you can, if you have the power, quite easily turn out in your own little foundry. The making of such things is not manufacturing. I am sure that words could be devised to meet this. I think, if I may say so, that the Lord Chancellor has made a very constructive suggestion. What we want to do here is to prevent these gas-producing bodies going into the wholly alien trade of manufacturing.
Quite frankly, I rather agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think that provided there is the necessary safeguard, it does not matter much whether a thing is done by an Area Board or by the Gas Council. Indeed, it might well be that if manufacture had to be undertaken, it would be better done by an Area Board than by the Gas Council. On the other hand, it is business which neither ought to undertake, except in most exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. As I understand it, this is desired only as an insurance in case the industry is held up by a ring. I do not believe, even if it were so held up, however, that that would be a wise way to tackle the difficulty. We had an agreement on that particular matter during our discussions the other day on the Monopoly Bill. I am sure that if there is any alleged malpractice by a ring, the way to deal with it is to have a proper judicial investigation into it, stop the malpractice and get the industry properly conducted by people who know how to conduct it. That is the best thing to do in the interests of the consumer.
As I have indicated, I think we are practically at one on this. The Lord Chancellor has shown that he does not wish, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that these concerns should go into manufacture; but he says, in effect: "I want to have this as a possible insurance." He has suggested some words to meet the case. May I suggest that there is an exact precedent for this in a Bill which we passed through this House in the last month—the Development of Inventions Bill? The First Lord of the Admiralty, who was responsible for the Bill, said the last thing which the Government wished with regard to any invention fathered or fostered by the Corporation was that the Corporation should go into manufacture. He made it

455
clear that what was proposed, therefore, was just what has always been done in regard to existing industry. That is, the Government would say: "You take up this invention on reasonable terms." Only if no industry could be found to do it, would the reserve power, provided in the Bill, for developing the invention be brought into play. The noble Viscount, the First Lord, quite reasonably said that "if that is our intention we ought to put it into the Bill." And some words were carefully designed by the Government draftsmen which we agreed entirely met the case. If the Lord Chancellor would look at this in connection with the wording in that Bill, and also bearing in mind Lord Ridley's suggestion, I think that we shall then have a provision which will satisfy us all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly undertake to do that. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for pointing out the distinction which he did point out. I realise the importance of what he has said. I will certainly look at the words in the Development of Inventions Act to see what help we can get from that.
LORD BARNBY: Before this Amendment is disposed of, may I just put this to the noble and learned Viscount? In the discussion which we had on a point in the Electricity Bill it was admitted that there is advantage in having some safeguards such as are now proposed. Could the Lord Chancellor indicate, in the event of circumstances arising which might require interpretation, what authority would interpret the grounds for a suggested review of the safeguard which he proposes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will be for the Area Boards themselves, but the Statute would state quite plainly that they would do this only if they were apprehensive. Whether they are apprehensive or not is a matter which only they can determine.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has met the point, and for the undertaking which he has given. In view of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.11 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "calculated" to insert "directly" The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to limit the very wide powers given to the Area Boards by Clause 1 (4). As the clause is at present drawn, it gives the Area Boards very wide powers indeed. The first line of the subsection reads:
"Every Area Board shall have power to do any thing and to enter into any transaction…"
The object of this Amendment is simply to limit those powers to those functions directly concerned with the powers entrusted to them under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("calculated") insert ("directly").—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think the noble Lord would really want me to. Take, for instance, a consideration such as this. The Area Board want to do something to extend the amenities of their workers: it may be a question of better housing for them; it may be a question of a canteen; it may be a question of a sports ground, or what you will. They ought obviously to have power to do all those things, and the noble Lord would be the first to agree with me in that. On the other hand, if the noble Lord inserts the word "directly," the subsection will read:
"which in their opinion is calculated directly to facilitate the exercise or performance"
of their functions. It would then be arguable whether they had that power. It could be said that the extension of these amenities conduced to the happiness and well-being of the men and, therefore, conduced to the efficient performance of the functions, but that it was only an indirect way of getting a good result. Therefore, I think that to limit the powers in this way would be disadvantageous. That being so, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to omit subsection (5). The noble Viscount said:

457
I put down this Amendment in order to elicit from the Government what are their intentions under this provision. The noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill has said that the whole intention in the Bill is to give as wide a latitude and as free play as possible to the Area Boards, and to have as little centralisation and control as feasible. He was good enough to say that I had been the part author of that principle. I hope it will be carried out. But I am a little anxious about this matter. Your Lordships will see from the Bill what are the powers of the Area Boards, and I agree that they are wide powers. But subsection (5) says:
"In carrying out any such measures of reorganisation and works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account, every Area Board shall act in accordance with a general programme settled by them from time to time with the approval of the Minister, and the Minister shall consult with the Gas Council before approving any such programme."
The whole essence of the Heyworth Report, upon which so much has been based, was to give the Area Boards complete autonomy, and, indeed, to put them in competition one with another (in so far as a monopoly in one district can be in competition with a monopoly in another district) and with the other light and power units in industry, so that they might each try out their own ideas, and there might be competition in efficiency. If your Lordships look at the Heyworth Report, you will see, in paragraph 16, on page 50:
"The effect of these provisions is:—

(a) To place the responsibility for the efficient operation of the Industry squarely on the shoulders of the Boards.…

(b) To give the Boards freedom to carry out this task. The price of this freedom is willingness to be judged by results."

It is true that in paragraph 10 of their Report, on page 50, they say that all new capital issues must be approved by the Minister. I do not think that is unreasonable, because the capital issues carry a Treasury guarantee. But there is all the difference in the world between giving to the Treasury a general financial control, or general financial supervision of the amount which is to be expended by an industry, and giving the Minister or the Gas Council the deciding voice—and both are brought in here, because the Minister has to approve every plan, and
458
he has to approve only after consultation with the Gas Council.
The limitation laid down by subsection (5) seems to me to be very wide. It is:
"In carrying out any such measures of reorganisation and works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account."
Of course, every reorganisation and development on any scale involves substantial capital outlay. Yet reorganisation and development, after all, is what these Boards are set up to carry through. The whole essence of having the separate Boards with their individual responsibility and trying out their own ideas is that each of them shall be able to frame their own plans suited to their own district—indeed, you may not want the same scheme in all different districts—and shall have the responsibility, and know that they have the responsibility, for carrying out those plans. If all substantial plans are to come to the Minister and be reviewed by him, and to come to the Gas Council and be reviewed by them, then I am afraid that, though we pretend to lay down a pattern of decentralisation under this clause, we shall again have bureaucratic centralisation brought in. I do not think the Government want to do that, but if this clause stands as it is drafted, as I read it, there is a very real risk of that happening. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT HALL: I want to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Minister will interpret his powers under this subsection strictly in accordance with the rules which have almost been laid down by various statements which have been made in another place during the course of the last five or six months. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor referred, as did Lord Swinton, to the autonomy of these various Boards. But here we are dealing with what is, after all, one of the fundamentals of the Bill—namely, the right of the Minister to have certain general control over the capital investment of this industry. Indeed, all other nationalisation Acts—the Coal Act, the Civil Aviation Act, the Transport Act and the Electricity Act—have similar provisions to this in dealing with capital development. I am not sure that such provision is confined to the Acts to which I have

459
referred. I think that in the Act of 1938, dealing with the nationalisation of royalties, words very similar to these were inserted. It does give the Minister certain overriding powers, but it is left to the Minister as to how he shall interpret those powers. I think in the cases to which I have referred it can be said that the Government have not attempted in any way to interfere with what might be regarded as the detailed work of the Boards, whether they are central boards or whether they are area boards.
I would emphasise the point that it is not intended that the Minister shall exercise a minute, detailed control of new plans produced by the Area Boards, but that there should be submitted to the Minister the programme, not necessarily of one year, but covering a number of years, including plans of development—how much they will cost and what form they will take. Of course, these plans will be discussed between the Area Boards and the Gas Council, and the Minister will have the benefit of the advice of the Gas Council. In the light of that advice, and of other general considerations affecting the national economy, he will decide as to whether the plan is a sound one. I think this degree of control is absolutely essential if we are to have a plan for full employment, and if the Minister is to carry out his functions of co-ordinating fuel and power. Even in the different areas there must be some relationship between the one industry and another. I do not think it is fair to say that the Minister is asking for what might be regarded as continuous supervision. I think it right that capital development plans, involving—as they might well involve—substantial sums of expenditure, should receive the approval of the Minister, but that the extension of some minor plans or repair activities should be undertaken by the Area Boards without the consent of the Minister.
If this subsection is deleted, and if we rely simply upon the borrowing powers, it would mean the withdrawal of control from just the place where it is desirable to have it. The words of the subsection were put into the Electricity Act after the measure was fully discussed in Committee in another place and modified to meet the wishes of the Opposition. I would like to say again that all the other nationalisation
460
Acts make provision in closely similar words to those of this subsection, and this may be regarded as a common form clause for such measures. Indeed, I think it was brought out in the discussion upon this Bill in another place that here is one means whereby Parliament can be kept informed of the plans from time to time, by charging the Minister with the responsibility which this subsection gives him. It is for that reason, and because this subsection is of fundamental importance to the Bill, that I hope noble Lords will not press for this subsection to be deleted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the answer of the noble Viscount is fully satisfactory. I admit that I should have some difficulty in redrafting this clause to make it do just what I want it to do, and to avoid its doing what I do not want it to do. That is always the difficulty in drafting. If you draft the thing too tightly, you exclude something. If you draft it too loosely, you give an interfering Minister too much power. It is one of the difficulties of engaging in this kind of legislation. Administered in the way in which the First Lord has suggested—namely, that a broad programme over some years is all that is to be submitted, with a general financial estimate, it seems to me to be quite legitimate. How the plan should be carried out, I think, should rest entirely with the Board, otherwise you will get a sealed pattern laid down by the Gas Council, instead of the experiments conducted by the Board who should have freedom of action and be judged by the results. I understand that that is the avowed intention of the way in which this is to operate, and as my ingenuity has not drafted anything which will completely meet what I want to do and what I want left undone, I feel bound to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
"(8) Every Area Board shall, after consultation with the Gas Council, prepare and put in force arrangements whereby incentives to increase efficiency, output and economy shall be provided for all persons in the regular employment of that Board."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has one great advantage, in that it is capable of being clearly understood. Its purpose, as your Lordships will see,

461
is to preserve in this industry some measure of incentive. As your Lordships know, the industry, to a large extent, has co-partnership schemes which have been proved of the greatest advantage in giving workers a great interest in the business itself, and encouraging them to do what they can to keep down the cost of production.
It is true that Clause 58 provides that these co-partnership schemes shall endure for an unstated period, but if we approach this matter in a realistic spirit we know very well—for reasons which I will not repeat to your Lordships, and which I have fully given before—they will not in fact endure. You will not have co-partnership schemes for long, and I suggest that it is necessary that we should replace them with some form of incentive. I well appreciate that incentives in a nationalised industry—and I beg noble Lords opposite to believe that I am not seeking to be provocative when I say this—cannot be based upon output. After all, part of the purpose of nationalisation is to decide what demands each kind of fuel will satisfy. The Government will be perfectly free to shift the load from gas to electricity, and it would not be fair to base these schemes on output. At the same time, it is by no means impossible to devise a perfectly practical and effective scheme. It is a simple thing to take the cost of your fuel or coal (if you are producing water gas, oil or coke), and take your wages, when you will arrive at a figure which gives you the cost per them. You can then take that as your basis, and any improvement on that figure can be reflected in some sort of bonus incentive to the workers. By this means you can get into the bonus scheme every form of worker including, of course, the repair men and maintenance men, because they in their turn, by exercising skill and efficiency, would tend to reduce the cost per them.
There are two other aspects of this matter and the first is this. I must say that if it is intended to replace co-partnership—and I fear this may be the intention—by a straight increase of so many pence per hour, that must obviously have an inflationary effect which at the moment is not desirable. The second point is that the wages in the gas industry are not unduly high compared with those in other industries, and the workers have to a large extent relied on the co-partnership
462
schemes to supplement their earnings. It is true, also, that the consumer is apt to be forgotten in these matters. I would remind your Lordships that the Lord Chancellor himself stated on the Second Reading—I will quote his exact words:
"…there is no reason why a new type of scheme embodying the incentive wage principle should not be adopted."
Therefore, in the interests of the workers, in the interests of the gas industry and in the interest of the consumer, I urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT HALL: I should like to say at once that I believe in incentives for increased production, and indeed for contentment amongst workpeople themselves. Ninety per cent. of my own industrial life was spent in an industry where I worked for an incentive, under a system of piece work. I agree with the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment that there are different methods in the varying industries. In my old industry it was a question of tonnage. Here, it is not easy to measure the means whereby incentives can be given. I am afraid that it is impossible to accept this Amendment, for I think that any arrangement for effecting incentives to increase efficiency should be made by the Gas Council rather than by the Area Boards. The noble Viscount knows that in the gas industry the relationship between employers and employees has been for many years a happy one. I know of no industry where industrial difficulties and disputes have been less frequent than in the gas industry, and that is largely due to the relationship which existed between employers and employees. At the same time it must be recognised that the negotiations over a long period have been conducted by the national organisations rather than by the district organisations, and any interference with that national system of negotiation may, I am afraid, lead to considerable difficulties, and would not be accepted by the trade unions.
As the noble Viscount rightly said, under Clause 56 (1) the primary duty for negotiating not only wages but conditions of employment was, at the request of the Minister of Labour and in agreement with

463
the trade unions, placed on the Gas Council, which, under this clause, is given full power to develop incentive schemes if desirable. But the general idea behind the clause and similar clauses in other nationalisation Acts is that the Council should be left as free as possible to work out whatever arrangements for dealing with wages and conditions of employment and so forth seemed most appropriate to them and to the trade unions and other employees' organisations. If this Amendment were made, the trade unions would be put at a certain disadvantage in their negotiations. The Opposition may argue that this Amendment is particularly desirable because the old co-partnership schemes provided gas workers with an incentive. But the Government Amendment made in the other place to Clause 58 provides for the temporary continuance of the old co-partnership schemes and looks to the development of new arrangements where both sides of the industry agree. The development of co-partnership schemes in future will, as the noble Viscount rightly said, require a great deal of thought. I think, therefore, that the point is properly covered in the Bill by the general powers under Clauses 54 and 58. I think it is in the interests of the industry and certainly of the trade unions that this matter should be dealt with in accordance with their wishes, and I regret therefore, that it is impossible to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I suggest that both points of view could be met by the alteration in the Amendment of the word "shall" to the word "may," I think we all desire to see the co-partnership schemes continued as much as possible, and this may be one way of doing it. On the other hand, there are great difficulties in forcing this requirement on every Board in every Area. Only certain companies have co-partnership schemes and I believe I am right in saying that none of the municipal undertakings has one. I do not think there is any other industry in which a bonus or other incentive scheme is legally enforceable. It might make an odd situation for those who were negotiating wage rates and conditions of employment. On the other hand, it seems to me that the proper people to put such a scheme into effect are the Area Boards,
464
because they are the employers. It is true that later on in the Bill the Gas Council is mentioned as the wages-negotiating body, but there is a clear parallel there with a number of other industries where the wages and conditions of work are negotiated nationally between employers and trade unions. They are put into effect locally and perfectly clearly and definitely worked out. So I submit that there is here a fair parallel. I suggest, therefore, that the word "shall" should be deleted in favour of the word "may."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I find a little difficulty here, because the later clauses of the Bill suggest that any arrangement of this kind should be a matter of negotiation and discussion between the Area Board or the Gas Council, as the case may be, and those who represent more directly the workers. Here it is proposed to give to the Area Board a power, entirely off their own bat, to enforce incentives, which would really be covered by the later clauses. I confess I should be a little nervous about that. I should prefer to leave it to some Amendment to Clause 56 or 58 dealing with this subject, rather than do it by compulsion.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. I thought originally that this was the right place to insert an Amendment of this kind. I am convinced now that this is not so. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that there must be national negotiations about general principles. I think that has always been so in this industry. This industry has had a peculiarly happy history in its industrial relations, and that result has been obtained by a combination of two things—good national negotiations and a sympathetic and understanding detailed application of general principles, with a pretty wide latitude by the employers and the workers in the different localities in working out the application which is most useful to the particular circumstances of their case. I am sure that we all want to keep both those things so far as we possibly can, and, above all, to keep the spirit and habit in which that has been done.
I do not believe that it will depend very much upon the words which are put into the Act of Parliament. In these things, the letter kills and the spirit

465
makes alive, and, if the spirit is not there, it really does not matter what is written into the Act of Parliament. If the spirit is there, provided there is nothing prohibitive in the Act of Parliament, then that spirit will work and make the thing real. I suggest that my noble friend should withdraw this Amendment now and, when we come on to have a general discussion on Clauses 56 and 58—I think they are the clauses which deal with national negotiations and the attempt to try to continue the co-partnership scheme—we might consider (and the Government could consider in the meantime) whether it would be possible and wise to insert some words into one or other of those clauses Which would make it clear that we are all in favour of national negotiations about the general principles, but that they should leave a wide latitude to Area Boards to carry out those principles in accordance with local practice and local experience.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Viscount withdraws this Amendment, might I say one word in support of what the noble Viscount has said? In doing so, I may perhaps echo a thought of which your Lordships' minds will be receptive—namely, how much your Lordships' House, upon a subject of this sort and a Bill of this nature, misses what would have been the wise counsel of the late noble Lord, Lord Dukeston. Lord Dukeston was the head of the trade union to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just paid such a glowing tribute. His knowledge of the gas industry and its industrial relations in this country was, I suppose, unrivalled. I feel that his advice to your Lordships' House this afternoon would have been exactly the same as that of my noble friend, Lord Hall, and of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for the courteous and careful nature of his reply. Particularly do I appreciate his remarks in regard to the happy relationship on both sides of the gas industry, of which, having been on the co-partnership committee of the company of which I am privileged to be a director, I have had some considerable personal experience. In the light of the observations which other noble Lords have been good enough to offer, and if not in the
466
expectation, at any rate in the hope that something may be done on the later clauses, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (8), to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection down to and including "Act" The noble Viscount said: I am not quite sure whether this is a good Amendment or not. On the face of it, it looks as if it were a very good one, because observe what it does. The clause reads:
"Subject to and in accordance with any directions given by the Minister under section seven of this Act, every Area Board shall reduce, so far as practicable, the price of gas and coke and avoid undue preference in the supply of gas and coke."
We certainly want every Area Board to reduce so far as practicable the price of gas, and we certainly want them to avoid giving any undue preference. Therefore, I said to myself: "Where two such admirable principles and directives are laid down, why should we bring in the Minister and regulations? Surely this ought to be an absolute directive to them: 'Sell as cheaply as you can and avoid giving undue preference'—two very sound principles. Why should the Minister have the power to come in and to give them directions that they are not to do, or that they are to do in only a modified form, what it is clearly laid down that they are to do?" Certainly I would have said they ought to do this in every case.
However, on looking a little more closely at it, I see that it is not just a general direction by the Minister who can come in and put temptation in their way. I rather think that Clause 7 limits his powers to what is requisite in the national interest, although I believe that he is the judge of what is in the national interest—there is no definition laid down as there is, for instance, in the Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill which we were considering. What I would like as an absolute assurance is this: that this clause is not intended to, and does not in fact, give the Minister power to tell the Boards, or any Board, to give undue preferences or to avoid selling as cheaply as they can. If I am told that it is to provide only for some very exceptional cases where, in the national interest, a supply of gas must be given (that was a case which we met with in other Acts: for instance, there might

467
be a reason on defence grounds for giving a special supply with great rapidity to a particular undertaking) I think it would be all right. If the words are necessary for that purpose and for no other purpose, I think that they are not objectionable, but if they give a general power to make a Board do the wrong thing, then I would say that my Amendment is a very good and necessary one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("every") in line 29.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Viscount has really made my speech for me. His second thoughts have hit so accurately upon the head the point of the opening words of this clause that there is little more to be said. As the noble Viscount himself has pointed out, the whole thing is subject to the general powers of the Minister in Clause 7, which can be exercised only in the national interest. The sort of matters which are in mind are exactly those to which the noble Viscount has referred. We are dealing with undue preferences. It might well be essential in the national interest that a particular type of industry should be built up rapidly for purposes of national defence. It might, therefore, be necessary that the Minister should issue a general instruction that special facilities in the way of supplies of gas must be given to that industry. I am very glad indeed to give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he has asked: that it will be only in cases of that kind where it is in the national interest, and the matter is of a general character and not of the type which he himself indicated would be mischievous, that this power will be exercised. In those circumstances and on that assurance, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that my Amendment is not quite so good as I thought it was at first blush. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment and general functions of Gas Council.
(5) The Gas Council shall have power to do anything and to enter into any transaction
468
(whether or not involving the expenditure, the borrowing in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the lending of money, the acquisition of any property or rights or the disposal of any property or rights) which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the exercise or performance of any functions conferred or imposed by any enactment other than this subsection or is incidental or conducive thereto.
LORD CHORLEY: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, after ("imposed") insert ("on them").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved to add to subsection (5)
"but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as derogating from the powers conferred upon Area Boards by this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment that I venture to propose is one of some substance. I think it will have emerged from the discussion which we have already had that the success of the working of this Bill will be largely the result of adequate administration and action on the part of the various Area Boards; and, as I think the noble and learned Viscount said, the Government wish these Boards to have a certain degree of autonomy. From the way in which this particular subsection is drafted it very much looks as though the overriding powers which appear to be in this subsection may materially affect the action of the various Area Boards. Your Lordships will recollect the importance that was attached in the Heyworth Report to the powers which would be given to the Area Boards; and, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said earlier, there should be great responsibility placed on these Boards. In the circumstances, I hope His Majesty's Government will consider these words, in order that it may be clear that these Area Boards will not have their duties curtailed in any way, though of necessity they may be under the general supervision of the Gas Council and, also, of the Minister. At the same time, I venture to repeat what I have already said, that I believe that the success of this measure is largely wrapped up in the efficient discharge by the Area Boards of the responsibility that it is intended to place upon them. I venture also to repeat that I am afraid,

469
under the wording of this particular subsection, that that may be jeopardised. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD CHORLEY: I think the fears of the noble Lord are quite groundless. If he looks at the subsection to which he is proposing this Amendment, he will see that the powers which are there conferred are conferred purely to "facilitate the exercise or performance of the functions conferred or imposed" on the Gas Council. If he looks at the earlier part of the clause, he will see that the Council will simply advise the Minister to
"promote and assist the efficient exercise and performance by Area Boards of their functions."
Then there are the powers in subsection (3):
"to manufacture plant required by Area Boards. to sell or supply such plant to Area Boards…to manufacture gas fittings and coke fittings except for export.…"
So it is really in pursuance of those powers that these words in subsection (5) are inserted. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that what he is in fact proposing carries the matter no further, and I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Might I add a word on this? I find myself in complete agreement with what Lord O'Hagan has said. This is a question of law and, for my part, I should be quite content if the Lord Chancellor would undertake to look into it before the matter comes to Report stage. But I might say now that in my opinion subsection (5) of Clause 2 is not limited to transactions which have been referred to in the preceding subsections. There is nothing in the clause which leads one to suppose that it is so limited. It refers to
"any transaction (whether or not involving)"—
a number of things which I need not read—
"which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the exercise or performance of any functions conferred or imposed by any enactment other than this subsection or is incidental or conducive thereto."
Speaking from a very long experience, I am inclined to think that the words which Lord O'Hagan has suggested will, or may
470
in the future, prevent a good deal of heart-burning as to the precise limits of subsection (5). I would ask the Government to reconsider the view expressed by the noble Lord just now as to the necessity for these words. To my mind they are necessary.
LORD CHORLEY: Naturally I am much influenced by an expression of opinion corning from the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. Of course, there is no other enactment at the moment; it must be some future enactment, if it goes outside this particular enactment. Presumably, if a later enactment of that kind were in fact passed through, it would obviously override; but in the light of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount I will certainly have it looked into again.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said and, in view of his assurance, I will not press the Amendment. I rather infer that the drafting Amendment that we have just passed goes a certain part of the way to meet my point. I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Constitution of Area Boards and Gas Council.
(2) Every Area Board shall be constituted as follows:—
(a) the chairman and not less than five nor more than seven other members shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply, local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers; and
3.57 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (2) (a) after "Minister" to insert:
"and in making such appointments the Minister shall secure that either the chairman or the person appointed under the next succeeding subsection to be deputy chairman shall have had practical knowledge of the gas industry and that the other members shall be appointed"
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 5 deals with the composition of the Area Boards and of

471
the Gas Council, and lays down that the Minister shall be responsible for the appointment of the chairman and the deputy chairman of both. This Amendment seeks to ensure that, in making these appointments as regards the Area Boards, the Minister shall secure that either the chairman or deputy chairman shall have had practical knowledge of the industry. For my own part, I should prefer that in every case the chairman himself should have that practical knowledge, firstly because he will be a very important person, certainly at the beginning of the new era and the new set-up, with great responsibility as to the reorganisation of his Area, both in the administrative and the technical field.
Secondly, to my mind it is essential that from the day of his appointment he shall be able to inspire confidence, both in his staff and his workers and, equally important, have confidence in his own ability to carry his job in full measure. Thirdly, I should have thought it would have been very much more helpful to the Minister if all members of the Gas Council had a practical knowledge of the industry. But we realise that, consistent with selecting the best man in every way suited for the post, the Minister should have as free a hand as possible in selecting his team, and therefore we suggest the alternative of the chairman or his deputy. It may be said, of course, in so far as members of the Boards are concerned, that they—and here I quote from the clause—shall have had "experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply." The chairman and his deputy will have at their call, in the natural course of events, all the knowledge necessary. But surely, when it comes to weighing the evidence as between possible conflicting opinions—and we all know that experts do disagree—and making decisions upon the evidence so gained, that is not quite the same thing. It seems to me that a background of personal knowledge and experience will be essential.
As I suggested earlier, confidence in "the boss" from the beginning of the new era of the industry will be of incalculable value in securing smooth working and co-operation. Such confidence is surely more easily obtainable if the person appointed is, so to speak, from the beginning "one of us." I may be told that, in the natural course of events,
472
the Minister will seek to appoint men who have this practical knowledge. If so, why not put it in the Bill? With its great traditions of public service and long history, the gas industry should surely be able to supply all the men necessary who have qualifications in both fields. I submit that the confidence of the industry and of the consumer—who, after all is the person most vitally concerned—will be greatly increased if His Majesty's Government can see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, after ("Minister") insert the said words.—(Lord Hampton.)
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, a somewhat similar Amendment was moved during the Committee stage in another place, and I think it would be well if I quoted the reply which was given by the Minister, for I think it contains a definite assurance as to what is his intention in relation to this matter. He said:
"we have no intention—I can give that assurance—of going outside the industry except where we honestly believe that there is no one in the industry as capable of filling this particular job as somebody from outside. In essence, I think it would be agreed that a man in the industry starts with a great initial advantage, but equally we do not want to rule out the possibility of appointing someone from outside."
I think that that assurance is quite definite and clear. It is given on general grounds, and it is most unlikely that there will be many cases where neither the chairman nor the deputy chairman of an Area Board is not what we might call a "gas man." The Amendment would tie the Minister's hands rather rigidly, not only now but for the distant future. Although these jobs are always likely to go mainly to men in the gas industry, I think it is undesirable to put this limitation on the discretion of the Minister. I believe that men in certain branches of the gas industry itself, while they may not have had experience in the actual production of gas, in certain cases have had experience in certain of the ancillaries of the gas industry.
If the, noble Lord requires further assurance I can refer only to what has happened in relation to the appointment of chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Electricity Area Boards. In that case, no fewer than twenty-two out of the twenty-eight persons appointed as chairmen and

473
deputy chairmen were from the electricity industry. In view of the experience which has been gained quite recently, and of the assurance which has been given by the Minister (and, after all, the Minister who is mainly responsible for the appointment of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Electricity Area Boards will, to some extent, have the appointing of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the Gas, Area Boards) I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The First Lord of the Admiralty has just given twenty-eight excellent reasons for accepting this Amendment, and then he has asked us not to press it.
A NOBLE LORD: Twenty-two reasons, not twenty-eight.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot understand why the noble Viscount asks the Committee to reject this Amendment. We are getting a little tired of being given all these assurances—of practices to be followed, and from which, we are told, no one in his senses would dream of departing—and not having them put into the Bill. If that is the way we ought to legislate, then all that is wanted in a nationalisation Bill is one clause to say that the Government will take over this industry, appoint a sensible Minister to run it and that that Minister will use his discretion in the most sensible way he can. If, in fact, a Bill were ever presented in that form, everyone would say what a disgraceful thing it was. We lay down all sorts of matters in great detail in this Bill. When it comes to compensation there is meticulous dotting of i's and crossing of t's—or double-crossing. But when it comes to what is vitally important—that is, who is to run this decentralised industry—then, although any sensible Minister would appoint people who know something about the industry, we are told that it must not be put in the Bill. Why not?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): It is in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, it is not. It is definitely not in the Bill. The noble Viscount really must read measures for which he is responsible. I know that it ought to be in the Bill, but if he had been paying proper attention he would have seen——
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It appears on page 5, at line 21—that is, in subsection (2) (a) of the clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I know this clause very well. Of course I have read it. It is the "Uncle Tom Cobley and all" clause, and we have often seen it before. It states that in the constitution of every Area Board

"(a) the chairman and not less than live nor more than seven other members shall be appointed by the Minster from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply, local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers; and

(b) there shall be one other member who shall be the person for the time being holding the office of chairman of the Gas Consultative Council established under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the area of the Area Board:"

The person referred to in paragraph (b) has not necessarily to be a person who knows anything about gas. He has to be someone whose appointment is agreed with local bodies.
I suggest that the first hundred people one would meet in the street would probably come within this clause. Sir Geoffrey Heyworth, upon whom the Minister has relied so greatly, was quite categorical about this in his recommendation. He said the chairman should be a man experienced in the gas industry. We have given in this Amendment a wider discretion which, on the whole, I think, is a reasonable one. We say that either the chairman or the deputy chairman shall be a man experienced in the gas industry. I can conceive of a case where it might be said: "I would rather take for chairman a man of general business experience and have as his deputy a man who has had long experience of the particular industry." But to say that we will not put into a Bill, which provides for a Board whose sole job is to be the efficient manufacture and sale of gas, a requirement that either the chairman or deputy chairman shall be a man with experience of that industry, seems to me to be not sensible. As the noble Viscount said, of course the Minister would appoint that kind of man. I have nothing to say against this Minister; he is a very good young Minister, I am told. He does not approve of washing, but he does approve of gas.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no vermin about him, at any rate.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, indeed. I am glad he has not reached that stage, and I hope he never will. It would be awful if the Cabinet had to set up a delousing station for some of their colleagues! But, seriously, surely it is good sense to insert these words. We are not legislating now only for what this Minister is going to do; we are legislating for all time—at least, I suppose we are. At any rate, we are legislating in general terms, and we ought really to legislate with good sense. I was much impressed with a point Lord Hampton made. He said that we want to give people in this industry confidence in the industry. I hate going outside to appoint somebody to command the battalion. I think it is a bad thing in the Services, and it is a bad thing in business. I want, by this provision, to give an indication to this nationalised industry that the jobs are going to the boys who come up through the industry and who know something about it. I believe this to be essentially right, for all the reasons which the noble Lord himself has given. I am afraid we shall have to divide on this Amendment if the Government are unable to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite realise the force of the argument. Indeed, I think if I were the Minister I should invariably select either the chairman or the deputy-chairman as a man who had been trained in the gas industry. But I do not think, as a rule, it would be the chairman. I have had no practical experience, but when I was at the Bar I had great experience of meeting Boards when they had got into difficulties. My experience is that it is rather a good thing not to have a technical man as chairman, but to have a man of wide outlook and wide sympathies, a man of great experience, and so on. As a rule, I think that is preferable.
The hesitation I have about the matter arises from the fact that there might be an exceptional case—it would have to be a very exceptional case—where the personalities with whom you were dealing were so strong that you might prefer, on a particular Board at some time (this, of course, is going to apply to the future) that neither your chairman nor your deputy-chairman should have what is
476
called "practical knowledge". I am not quite sure what "practical knowledge" means. It is for that reason that I am hesitant to accept an Amendment which I quite concede would be sensible in 99 cases out of 100. I am willing to consider the matter again, and discuss it with the Minister, and see whether, in order to meet your Lordships' wishes, he will accept an Amendment on these lines. If he does, I shall be very pleased. I cannot promise anything, because I have no authority at the present moment except to resist the Amendment. But if your Lordships want the Amendment, your best chance of getting it, if I may suggest so, is to see what the Minister thinks about it. If I am given authority, I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his undertaking. I would assure him that we put forward this Amendment entirely with a view to helping this new organisation at the beginning. We feel that it is important to have the provision in the Bill, where all may read it, that the Government are taking every possible step, as far as they can, to make the industry happy about the whole set-up. In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2):
"not less than two members shall be elected by the workers in the gas undertakings taken over by the Board; and".
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is simply to add to the Area Board two members, to be elected by the workmen of the undertakings within the district of the Area Board. I think it raises a point of some importance on the question of the reorganisation of industries generally, and particularly in this case of the gas industry. The object of the Bill (I think it has been restated this afternoon) is to secure and improve the supply of gas for the various purposes for which it is used, and, therefore, to increase the efficiency in the methods used for its manufacture and sale. It is therefore of the first importance to increase the interest of the workers in what they are doing. A bored worker is a bad

477
worker, as everybody knows. On the other hand, the conditions of modern industry make it rather difficult to provide that the worker shall be interested in his work. That is so for many reasons. One of them is merely the size of the undertaking. The size is such that each worker necessarily regards his particular job as so small a part that he is apt to feel that he is merely a cog in the machine, and he does his allotted work mechanically and without that enthusiasm which some great authorities have declared to be the chief need of industry at the present moment.
Prima facie, this Bill will not remedy that. On the contrary, it will increase that difficulty, because, as we all know, it provides for amalgamating gas undertakings into units still larger than any existing undertaking. Unless we take steps to prevent the result, each worker will inevitably feel that his effort is smaller than ever compared to the size of the undertaking; and he will feel, therefore, that the quality of his work is of little or no importance. Every step possible should be taken to enlarge what I may venture to call the mental horizon of the workers. I cannot help feeling that the constitution of the Area Boards does nothing to help in this matter. They are nominated by the Minister, who is himself appointed by the Prime Minister; and the Prime Minister represents, not the gas policy particularly, but the general tendency of the votes given at the previous General Election. It is true that each worker has a vote and, therefore, a tiny—it is almost infinitesimal—voice in the general industrial policy of the country, but it is mere folly to suppose that by that vote he has any real share in directing the particular industry in which he is engaged.
The Amendment that I am venturing to submit to your Lordships will at least give him a voice by giving him his share in the appointment of two members of the Board. Through those members he may hope to influence the way in which the section of the industry in which he is engaged is carried on. The member of the board will be able, as a matter of right and not of favour, to receive information on any point upon which he is interested. I know it is said that the fact that industry belongs to the State will give the worker a greater interest in his work. I am bound to say that I
478
doubt very much whether that is a sound view. The State is a mere abstraction; it does not represent another individual. It represents just a body sitting somewhere, in Whitehall I suppose, which directs the government of the industry. There is no direct human relationship between the State and the worker, even under a system of nationalisation. It is not, indeed, the State to whom he will look at all, but to the Area Board, who will be in the place of his present employers. The success of this plan, and the success of the Bill generally in giving anything like increased interest to the workers must depend largely upon relations with the Board.
Your Lordships should remember that these workers have now the right of electing members of the board of directors of the company for which they are working. Having had some means of ascertaining whether I am right in so saying, I think they will feel it bitterly if that right is taken from them and nothing is put in its place. It is for that reason that. I ventured to put down this Amendment. If the industry is to work properly the bond of human sympathy between the workers and their employers must not be destroyed. We have often heard the phrase that a Government should be one which operates with the consent of the governed. I believe that to be a perfectly sound view, and one of the many discoveries in political wisdom which this country has made. I believe it to be as important in industry as it is in political affairs. To some extent we have solved the problem of securing the consent of the governed by the representative system in politics. It does at any rate involve a direct relationship between the voter and the Government. That principle has, on the whole, been very successful in this country, and I venture to say that it should be extended to industry. It is only in that way that we can avoid what the Prime Minister called the substitution for democratic socialism—which he recommends—of a bureaucratic collectivism, which he rightly condemns. After all, it is upon the freedom of the worker that his interest depends, and it is upon his interest that depends not only his efficiency but his responsibility for the work in which he is engaged. It is for those reasons, which I will not venture to enlarge upon now, that I recommend this Amendment to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may say one personal word in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble relative Lord Cecil. We are often told in this House, and outside, that the greatest cause of distrust in industry at the present time is that the men do not know what is going on. I have no doubt that at various times in the past many noble Lords opposite have felt that very strongly, at any rate with regard to private industry. I expect there is a good deal of truth in the suggestion that there is a distrust. In old days, when industries were small—sometimes you still find small firms—that cause of distrust did not bulk very large, because the employer was in such close touch with his men that he was able to tell them, day by day, what was happening with regard to the fortunes of the firm. But the bigger the industry becomes, and the larger the amalgamation that is created, the more remote the employer becomes from the man whom he employs, and the greater need there is for those men to be given reassurance—at least so I should have thought. I believe this evolution reaches its furthest point in the case of a nationalised industry. After all, it is a vast concern, covering the whole country, and the individual cog in the machine is very remote indeed from the board room. One would have thought, therefore, that some such special machinery as is suggested by this Amendment was more necessary there than in any other case.
I have often heard, as has my noble relative, the argument that now that the State is the employer, the man can feel absolutely confident that no private interests are to stand in the way of their welfare. I have heard that urged with great force and sincerity. But I do not think that is so. I say this in no controversial spirit. I think there is a tendency, so far as I can understand it, and so far as I have heard it, in the coalfields and in other fields of nationalised industry, for the men to feel not that they have a completely beneficent employer, but that they have in fact, if I may use the phrase, "exchanged one boss for another," and that inevitably the new boss—because he is a bigger boss—is further
480
away from their personal concerns than the old one, and is one with whom they cannot get in touch. If industry is going to be nationalised, we on this side of the House do not want that feeling to gain ground, any more than do noble Lords opposite. Obviously, it is unhealthy for that body of industry. Surely, the best way is that two representatives of the men should divulge to their fellows all that is possible as to the working of the industry in which they work. The easiest way to do that is for the men to feel that they have on the Board some representatives who have, as it were, a watching brief for their interest.
After all, that is what a director does in a company. I have always thought that the word "director" is most unfortunate, because it gives the impression that all these members are, in fact, running the industry. They are not, of course; that is done by the management. The directors are there to watch the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders are the people who have invested their money, and these are the people who have invested their labour. I put that forward only as an argument which appeals to me, and I should have thought that it ought to appeal to the Government. It does not seem to me that there is anything very revolutionary in the proposal. It is a natural evolution which ought to be acceptable to members of all Parties. I therefore strongly hope that the Government will be able favourably to consider this Amendment.
LORD RENNELL: I had considered an Amendment on the same lines as this, but I did not put it clown because I saw the Amendment of the noble Viscount. There is only one aspect of the terms of his Amendment which make me a little doubtful. The words in his Amendment are:
"Not less than two members shall be elected by the workers.…"
There is a certain danger, if members of boards are elected by organisations, that they tend to become advocates of the organisation, instead of members of the board. On the other hand, the actual prescriptions of the clause as drafted in the Bill do not make it in any way mandatory on the Minister to appoint any member of an organisation of workers. It is only that workers shall be appointed from a group of people. I wonder whether

481
it would not meet the noble Viscount's point and the point of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, if the Amendment were altered to read:
"Not less than two members shall be selected from among the workers in the gas undertakings taken over by the Board…"
They would then feel that they are members of the Board, rather than representatives of the organisation. If an Amendment of that sort were acceptable to the Government I should be strongly in support of it. I feel that the terms of the subsection as drafted are not sufficiently mandatory to require the Minister to appoint any members of any workers' organisations. Having regard to the past history of the gas industry, I think that is a great pity.
VISCOUNT HALL: Like other noble Lords, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, in moving this Amendment. I know and admire his long efforts for the humanising of relationships between workers and employers in the gas industry. That industry owes much to his efforts. His proposal, of course, is not revolutionary, but it lays down a new principle in industry.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
VISCOUNT HALL: I do not know of a single instance, certainly in the industry with which I have been connected, where representatives of the workpeople, selected by the workpeople, have been asked to join any board of directors.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend has not been properly informed, if I may say so. It is certainly so in the gas industry. The South Metropolitan Gas Company had a board of nine members. Of these, three represented the workers; two of these three represented the manual workers and one represented the clerks. They were all elected—not, if I may say so, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, appointed by an outside organisation. The workers themselves chose the men they desired to see on the board. That has been in operation for a great many years, and it has always worked perfectly smoothly and with the best possible results.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am delighted to hear that. I think it must be confined entirely to gas companies, for I do not
482
know of any other industry where an experiment of the kind has been tried.
I think it may be said that in the set-up of the boards under the nationalised industries there is to be found much greater confidence in the Board by the workpeople than they had in their previous employers. I am referring to particular industries, and especially to the coal-mining industry. In that industry over a very long period—it might I well go back to 1921—there has been an utter lack of confidence between the workpeople and those who were charged with the responsibility of management. In South Wales at the present time much of that feeling has been destroyed, and a growing confidence is being built up as between the workpeople and the Board itself. I look upon this proposal with some sympathy, but unfortunately I am charged with the difficult task of saying that, under the setup which is provided under the Bill, the selection of persons to serve on the Area Boards and the Gas Council must be the responsibility of the Minister. It is a difficult matter when persons have to be selected from a large area. Take the Area Board for the whole of South Wales, where—although I can only hazard a guess—the number of people employed in the gas industry must be 15,000 to 20,000. To select by ballot two representatives from that area would present a considerable amount of difficulty; and there is, the danger that, once the precedent is laid down, other interests, such as the local authorities who are responsible far the ownership and management of many of the gas undertakings in the various areas, would ask that in the same way they should have direct representation upon the board.
Although, as I say, I have some sympathy with the point of view expressed, I can appreciate the difficulty at the Minister in connection with this Amendment. The clause which has already been referred to gives a wide choice for representation on the Board; and as has been stated in the discussions in another place it is the intention that representatives of the workers will be given very careful consideration in the selection for membership of the board—although the Minister did not commit himself that the representatives of the workers should come from that industry. I wish that I could meet the noble Viscount, but unfortunately my instructions are that we cannot depart from

483
the method of selection. For these reasons, it is impossible for me to accept this Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will divide on this matter. I have the greatest distrust of a system of nomination from a long distance to important bodies. I wish it were possible in this instance to proceed on the lines of the Port of London Authority or the Thames Conservancy. If that is not possible, I think that some improvement where it is most needed in the system of nomination is supplied by this Amendment. If ever there was an industry in which the men were qualified to act in this way it is the gas industry. As my noble friend has pointed out, there has been confidence among the workers in the industry. I do not think that recent results of nationalisation have shown that there is any greater good feeling than there was before. I know all about the Grimethorpe Colliery. The history of that colliery certainly does not support that conclusion. However, that is by the way. We have a definite proposal here and I trust that it will be voted upon. No doubt some Schedule may be necessary as to the means of election, but there is plenty of time for that. At any rate, this is a fine principle to establish, and I trust that that will be done.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged to my noble friend and to my noble relative. Certainly, if I get any support I shall divide the House, because I regard this matter as of the first importance, not only for the gas industry but also for the general industrial policy of this country. It is time to recognise that the best way out of our difficulties is to inculcate a fresh confidence and a fresh responsibility in the workers. Give them the right to know exactly what is going on and to offer their advice and opinions. That is the way to avoid reckless strikes, such as we have seen in the immediate past, and other difficulties in industry. I want to press upon the Government that this is not so much a question of confidence in the State or in the Area Board. The question is: Can we do something which will make the employment of the workers more humane and more interesting than it is now, and, there-more, more efficient? Also, can we give them such a sense of responsibility that
484
everyone will feel that the industry in which he is working is partly his own? That is the object of my suggestion. As to the problem of the number of people involved in my Amendment, my noble friend is not very courageous in telling me that there is difficulty in polling 15,000 men. That would mean that our whole constitutional arrangements are thoroughly unsound. May I say that I most heartily agree with my noble friend in saying that nomination is a poor substitute for election. I earnestly press upon the Government that this is not a new device, something that has never been tried before. It has been tried for something like fifty years in one of the great industries with which we deal in this Bill—and tried with perfect success.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not know whether the noble Viscount is withdrawing his Amendment or not. I hope, however, that the House will not accept this Amendment, not because I have not every sympathy with the idea of men who are working in the industry gradually rising through it and reaching responsible positions, but because I think that the method which is laid down by the Amendment is totally wrong. I think also that it is founded on a slight misapprehension. Let me say a word upon that point first. The noble Viscount who moved this Amendment referred to the difficulties which are now apparent in industry, particularly in nationalised industry, such as coal, due to the trend of Government and the distance from the individual worker to the responsible head. That is a very real difficulty to an industry, but I do not think that the solution here recommended would have any effect. It would involve a matter of perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 workers employed by one of the Area Boards. They would have to elect two people, and that is the last they would see of them. Those two men would be employed no longer as workers in their jobs, as they were before, but would become at least part-time members of the Board.
It is suggested that they would then be in a position to know all that was going on, all that was being planned and thought, and that they should be used as a means of keeping contact between the responsible Board and the workers themselves. But there is a way of doing that which avoids the confusion arising

485
from divided loyalties—confusion that I think is bound to arise here if members of a Board are appointed by election rather than by nomination. People elected by their fellow workers are there to represent them, to put forward their point of view, whereas these people are members of the Board for the purpose of running the industry. That is where confusion of thought arises. The modern trend of thought in the matter of meeting the difficulties mentioned by the mover of the Amendment is much more in the direction of breaking down responsibility so far as possible, and of arranging for what is known as joint consultation at a number of points in the chain of command. So far as that has gone, I think it is pretty clear that it can achieve results. I am sure that that is the way to do it. As to the extent of this practice in the gas industry, I think that it is only in the South Metropolitan Gas Company and in perhaps one other company that it is at present in operation. Of course, that is a very small percentage of the gas industry as it now is.
It seems to me that it is partly open to the Minister to appoint people, as it says here, with experience in the organisation of workers—people who have been brought up in the industry and also, beyond that, have been trained in management of trade unions and for dealing with wage negotiations. It is clear that the best and the most satisfactory method for the man who starts as a manual worker to work up into management and direction of industry is by gradually gaining experience and being given opportunities—more opportunities than he is now given—of equipping himself in the functions of management and direction, which are very different from the functions which are carried out by most of the men employed by the gas industry. So that, granted that there are improvements in the methods of training for promotion, which are, I think, referred to in this Bill, there is every opportunity for the men gradually to qualify themselves and to become appointed under this general category as members of the Board.
A practical point of difficulty arises here. It has arisen over the Electricity Act. I do not know whether it applies also in the case of this Bill or not. That is, that I think it has been found in one or two cases under the Electricity Act that there is no provision for a pension
486
scheme for part-time members of the Board. It has been found difficult to persuade people who are at present members of pension schemes or are employed by trade unions and have their pension rights, to give up all those rights and become part-time members of the Board when no pensions provision is made for them in the Act. For these reasons, I think that this Amendment is a mistake. There are other and better ways, first, of keeping the worker in industry in contact with the management and direction; and, secondly, of promoting trained people from the lower levels right up to the top. I think this is an unsatisfactory proposition. It would be a difficult one to handle and would put the two elected people themselves in a very unfair position.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No one will accuse any member on this side of your Lordships' House of not being in sympathy with the underlying principle contained in this Amendment, but I suggest to your Lordships that this is fundamentally the wrong way to achieve it. I cannot conceive of a method which would cause more trouble in an industry which all your Lordships have said on many occasions is the most harmonious industry in this country. It has been stated by all noble Lords on the other side who have been spokesmen for this industry, and have claimed to have a lifelong experience in it, that its industrial relations are a model of what industrial relations should be. I think noble Lords will agree with me that one of the chief reasons for that is that the wisdom and guidance of the particular trade union have been, to a major degree, responsible for the organisation in the gas industry. Suppose that you started representation upon these Boards by popular vote. I need not say much upon some of the evils of popular voting, and mandated representations. Every noble Lord has agreed that this is entirely the wrong way of putting responsible men upon these Boards. I wonder what would have happened if a fortnight ago had been the period for electing two or three dockers' representatives upon the dock authority.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It would never have occurred.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a supposition which the noble Viscount ought not to make. Do you really need

487
to have mandated representations for which there will have to be fierce electioneering to serve upon these Boards? And to represent whom; and to represent what? Surely the members of these Boards have to run this concern in the national interest, and not to look over their shoulders all the time they are on the Boards to appease and collect the votes of the people who put them there. I feel quite certain that if you want to bring about close co-operation and a greater degree of worker representation upon Boards, whether they be national boards or any other—and I am all in favour of it—a hasty movement such as this would retard that desirable end for years and years to come. I therefore hope the Committee will reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I venture to make a suggestion to my noble friend? I think this has been a most rewarding debate. I believe there is a tremendous volume of sympathy in the Committee for having worker directors on the Board, and particularly in this industry. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that, having regard to the size of these undertakings, it will not in the least be a substitute for that close joint consultation in every sub-station or, at any rate, throughout the whole organisation of the Board. I feel that what is enormously important is to get the right men. That means two things: it means men who are able in themselves to make a real contribution; it also means men who can serve in a team. Both these things are very necessary when it comes to a Board or to the management of a trade union. Even in the management of a Party it is not unimportant.
There is, I think, some force in the statement that this matter of elections has worked extremely well in the South Metropolitan Gas Company. There, it has grown up through the course of time, and everybody has got used to it. There is a complete profit-sharing system, where these people are shareholders, and it is almost a family partnership. It is very intimate. But you are legislating here for all these Boards and, as I said before, you cannot legislate a spirit into them, and that may be a reason why you might not get the best men elected. You want people who will undertake functions on the Board other than from the point of
488
view of representatives. It is like representing a constituency in Parliament. I have always made a working rule in my business life that if people contemplate a vote on a board of which I am a member I shall resign from the board, whether the people are with me or against me. It would be unfortunate if they went back to elections, rather like some people go back to election pledges. I had a fairly safe seat, but others were not so happily situated; and there might be a good many candidates for the post. It would be most unfortunate if you get the sort of feeling "What have they got for us while they were sitting on that Board?" Those are the dangers.
On the other hand, I think there is something to be said for having workers on the Board, not elected in that way but chosen. I do not quite know how, and perhaps we might think about that between now and Report. I do not think there would be the least difficulty in finding for every one of these Area Boards not one but twenty worker-directors, who would be valuable directors, not simply because they are workers but because they could contribute a great deal to it. And the right men would be found. I venture to suggest to my noble friend that he might ask the Committee now to accept his principle but leaving out at this stage the words "elected by the," and that he should move his Amendment in this form:
"Not less than two members shall be workers in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board; and…"
If he is willing to move the Amendment in that form, I certainly would go wholeheartedly with him in his Amendment. About the form of his Amendment as it stands now, in spite of all the forcible points that he put forward, I should feel a difficulty. But I believe that for the Amendment in the form I have suggested he would have a large consensus of opinion in his favour. It may be that at a later stage, if that Amendment were accepted, the Government might want to add perhaps one more member to the Board, but that would be an easy and a consequential Amendment to insert. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that he should move his Amendment in the form in which it stands but leaving out the words "elected by the."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course, I shall have to do what I am told.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: By whom? It is a free vote.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My whole career shows that I am always ready to do that. If that is what the House desires, of course they will do it. But would not the best plan be for my noble friend to move an Amendment to my Amendment? I shall vote against him, but that Amendment would no doubt be carried in its amended form. I would rather do that, because I cannot honestly bring myself to say that I think nominated workers are anything like as good as elected members. I belong to the English school and not to the Russian school. The whole difference really between us and the governors of Russia at this moment is: "Do you believe in election or do you believe in nomination?" They say: "We believe in nomination as much the soundest way of producing a really representative body." The result is what we have seen—the body becomes a mere oligarchy, without any real relation to the people it governs. We believe, and have believed for centuries, in this country, that if you want representation the best way of securing it is by election. And that is the only way in which we have ever succeeded in doing it.
There is the matter of the difficulty and danger which my noble friends belonging to the progressive Party foresee in any expansion of the power of the workers—and indeed that Party have always been foreseeing difficulties and dangers in every extension of the franchise, from the Reform Bill onwards, They say "You do not know what will happen. They will be at the mercy of agitators, they will vote for all sorts of things," and so on. I agree that they are real dangers. But, what are we going to do in order to bridge the gap that at present divides the employers from the workers? That is the real problem in this country, and in my view it is by far the greatest industrial problem that exists. I believe that the only way to do it is by getting the workers to understand that they are not just bought like slaves, to do their job without any voice in the organisation or the management of the concern by which they are employed, but that they are real partners and owners of the concern. They must be persuaded that they are working primarily for the
490
concern, but also for the public duties involved. Thus you will find the real kind of sympathy and security that exist in the great gas company, in dealing with which I have repeatedly bored the House. But that company affords a splendid example of what can be done by giving complete trust to the workers, and it shows what an immense response you get by appealing to their sense of responsibility and loyalty to their work. I will do whatever my noble friend tells me I must do, because I do not want to quarrel with him. But I do beg him, if he can bring himself to do so, to support me in some way or other in the suggestion which I have ventured to make to-day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is not a question of my telling the noble Viscount what to do, or of the Whips being on, so far as we are concerned. We leave this matter entirely to a free vote. I hope that I shall not be permanently labelled as a commissar. I would be perfectly prepared to move an Amendment to my noble friend's Amendment, because that would be the right way of doing things. And I do not think that it is particularly undemocratic. I would just point out something which we might be in danger of overlooking in this very interesting debate—something which may have escaped my noble friend's notice. The other members of these Boards are not to be elected at all. We must remember that. I am not saying that I like the arrangement for all these people to be appointed by the Minister. I prefer the process of election, but I think it would be a strange thing, apart from other objections, to introduce into this clause an Amendment of this kind. The result would be that you would have six or seven members appointed by the Minister and then add two people appointed in quite a different way. But I will not argue this further now. My noble friend's Amendment is before the Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let me see if I can elucidate this discussion a little. If it is a question as between the government of Russia and that of England I am wholeheartedly on the side of England. But if it follows from that that election is always better than nomination, then I am not prepared to assent to any such proposition. One of my tasks, as noble Lords know, is to appoint Judges. In certain parts of the United States

491
they elect Judges. When I was there last summer, I was asked by many people how they could get rid of their system and adopt ours. There are undoubtedly instances where, without any slavish adherence to the Russian system, nomination is better than election. The question is: Is this one of those instances? I think that it is; and for a very simple reason. If you are going to have a Board, part of whose members are nominated and part of whose members are elected, I do not believe that you will be likely to get a very harmonious body. It seems to me that the two elected members will be delegates. They will, in my view, be likely to have divided loyalties. The whole success of this scheme depends upon having happy and contented Boards, with members who will work together, who will pull together and, generally speaking, exhibit the team spirit. To have a Board constituted in the way that is now suggested is not, in my view, calculated to promote the team spirit.
What is the position at the present time? Clause 5 gives the Minister power—this appears on page 5, lines 20 to 24—and indicates to him the sort of people from whom he is to appoint his boards—they are to be
"…persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply, local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers."
LORD RENNELL: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment? I think there is a point here which may have escaped attention. One of the categories from which the Minister is to appoint these Boards is people who have "had experience of and shown capacity in…the organisation of workers." What we are discussing now is the appointment of workers from the industry, and not from an organisation of workers. There is a vast difference. The Minister is not required to appoint someone from the workers but from organisation of workers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly the point I was going to make. That will appear when I come to the projected Amendment to the Amendment. This is my reason for opposing this idea of having a board part-elected
492
and part-nominated, and the elected part being mere delegates—for that is what they would tend to be. They would tend to be mere delegates pressing a particular point of view, feeling that they have got to do so to justify their election, that it was, in fact, their raison d'être. I say this, knowing that it may be used in evidence against me hereafter, but what we have to guard against is this sort of thing. You might have pressure for, say, an increase of wages or something of that sort, and it might be too readily assented to because there is no strong enough motive to resist it. It would be passed on to the consumer. That is the kind of danger we have to guard against. I do not think that danger would be in any way lessened if we had elected representatives. The tendency would be for those representatives to press a particular point of view. Therefore I think the principle is wrong.
I can well understand that the system has worked, and worked well, in a comparatively small and homogeneous company like the South Metropolitan. I agree that they blazed the trail in their early days, when the welfare of the workers was regarded—I am not making any Party point about this—as nothing like so important as it is to-day, when it was regarded as more or less a sideshow. But it is one thing to do this for a particular company, such as the South Metropolitan, and quite a different thing to do it for an Area Board which spread over a huge area and embrace all sorts of companies which have no relationship with each other. I think therefore that this idea is impracticable. Let us by all means stress as most important the necessity of getting together a happy and contented band of workers, and all that that means. Let us have all the Boards concerned to bring that about. Let us have facilities for discussion with the organisations of the trade unions, and so on, to hammer out satisfactory schemes. I believe that is a much more likely way of bringing about what we all desire to bring about than to have part of the Board elected by the workers—a method which I believe to be wrong.
I come now to the suggested Amendment to the Amendment. Here I am inevitably speaking without any instructions from the Minister, because there has not been an opportunity for him to consider the matter. The point is that the

493
classes from whom the Minister can appoint are sufficiently wide to include the trade unions. The phrase is, "organisation of workers." The exception which, on the spur of the moment, I would take to the Amendment if moved in Lord Swinton's form—I do not know whether this is the view the Minister would take—would be that it would make that impossible. I do not say you should appoint persons from the trade unions, but I do say that you should not word your Amendment so as to make that impossible. The appointment may be from the workers in the industry; it may be from the trade unionists, who have had a lifelong experience of the industry as trade unionists, but who are not in the industry. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendment in that form would be wrong. In any case, whether I am right or wrong on that, I obviously could not accept the Amendment without finding out what those who advise me have to say about it. For those reasons, if this matter were to be voted upon, I should find myself voting against the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and if and when that was defeated, I should then find myself voting against Lord Swinton's suggested Amendment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You have to vote against Lord Swinton's Amendment first.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is quite right. I should have to vote against Lord Swinton's Amendment and having done that, I should then vote against the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I should vote against Lord Swinton's Amendment primarily for the reasons I have given, and also because I could not accept it until I had had an opportunity of getting instructions as to what I should do about it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we are all in some difficulty over these Amendments. We have two Amendments before us. I think it very important that the Committee should be in a position to come to a clear conclusion. I am in as great a difficulty as anybody else, because, fundamentally, I agree with my noble relative that election is the better form. I am made a little nervous by remarks which have come from the Government Front Bench about representatives of trade unions who will be
494
selected, and who may not be entirely representative of the working people. On the other hand, I do see, equally, a great difficulty in two members of the Board being elected by an outside body, and all the rest being nominated by the Minister. I have an uncomfortable feeling that that would not work, however much I like it. Therefore, I am inclined to come to the conclusion that I shall support the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, not because I think it is the better, because I would prefer election if that were possible, but because my fundamental object is to get two workers from the industry on the Area Board. If we can get that, then I think a good deal has been gained. If the other proposition is not practical, I shall be prepared to fall back on this as the best that can be practically obtained.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: With the permission of the Committee, I would like to say a few words in answer to those which have fallen from the Lord Chancellor and from my noble relative Lord Salisbury. Of course, I want to get anything I can in the direction for which I am working. I should not think of dividing against Lord Swinton's Amendment, after the expression of approval that it has received front various quarters of the Committee. I hope, in that case that I can rely on Lord Swinton being able to support the Amendment as amended.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, would move it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No. I will accept Lord Swinton's Amendment, if he moves it, and if the Lord Chancellor wants to vote against it, he can.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to leave out the words "elected by the" in the second line.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("elected by the").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to the Amendment has now been moved, and I want to put this to your Lordships. I think you are pacing me in a rather embarrassing position.

495
Sometimes if I go to the Minister and discuss these things with him I am able to bring about permanent results, which do not always follow if your Lordships carry through your Amendments. As I have said, I am not prepared to accept this Amendment now; I have no instructions in regard to it. Therefore, if your Lordships press the Amendment now, I must vote against it. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is withdrawn now, I will consult with the Minister about it (I have no authority to say anything), and it may be that I shall be able to accept something on the Report stage. In the long run that may prove to be the wisest thing to do. If your Lordships choose to press this Amendment now, in view of the difficulties with which I am faced I shall have no option—nor will those who sit with me—but to vote against it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I appreciate the difficulties of the Lord Chancellor, but I hope your Lordships will not refrain from coming to a decision on this point. It ought not to make all that difference to the Minister whether your Lordships have voted on the point or not. He ought to come to his decision
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
upon the merits of the case. If he thinks that our Amendment is justified, no doubt he will be prepared to accept it, or, at any rate, to see that it is recommended to the other place. If, on the other hand, he thinks it is a bad Amendment, no doubt he will vote against it in any case. But to say that we are precluded from coming to a decision, because if we come to a decision without prior consultation with the Minister he is bound to show himself unfavourable to our decision, is not, in my view, a position which your Lordships can accept.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean that of course. On the other hand, it is sometimes useful to have consultation when, as we all know, sometimes we can, if I may put it crudely "do a deal" with each other. However, I do not mind. If your Lordships press the Amendment, I shall vote against it.
On Question, Whether the said new words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Salisbury, M.

Monsell, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Townshend, M.

Simon, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Albemarle, E.

Trenchard, V.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Beatty, E.

Monson, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moyne, L.

Craven, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

O'Hagan, L.

Howe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Courthope, L.

Rennell, L.

Lindsay, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Rockley, L.

Manvers, E.

Denham, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Perth, E.

Dunleath, L.

Schuster, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teynham, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Greville, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hacking, L.

Wardington, L.

Lambert, V.

Hampton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Long, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Amwell, L.

Milverton, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chorley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darwen, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Huntingdon, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Pakenham, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hall, V.

Holden, L.

Quibell, L.

Ridley, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rochester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Marley, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Ammon, L.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) The chairman or the deputy chairman of each Area Board and not less than three other members of the Board shall devote the whole of their service to the Board."
The noble Lord said: the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that there shall be a sufficient number of full-time members to ensure the efficient management and functioning of the Area Boards. As the Bill is at present drafted, the industry could he run by Area Boards on a part-time basis. There is nothing in the Bill that says that the chairman or any other members of the board need be anything but part-time. I do not think there is any difference between the two sides of your Lordships' House on the fact that the industry is so vast and important that it needs the most efficient management, and that obviously full-time management will have to be incorporated in the structure of the industry. The work will be continuous and responsible. On an earlier Amendment the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor stressed the decentralisation which is taking place in this nationalisation measure as compared with previous measures. It has already been said that the Area Boards will have a greater responsibility and more work thrown upon them than the corresponding bodies under the previous Acts.
We may receive an administrative assurance that in fact the Minister intends to appoint a certain number of whole-time members, but I submit to your Lordships that such an administrative assurance is not sufficient. The point is of such importance that it deserves to be incorporated in the Bill. The Heyworth Committee recommended that the size of the Board should be seven—a chairman and six members. The Bill proposes a chairman and not less than five and not more than seven members. It would seem that a minimum of four whole-time members—namely, three and the chairman—is not unreasonable. If, however, it makes the matter easier for the Government, and the Government think that we have put the figure too high, I and those noble Lords who support me would be willing to alter the Amendment so as to reduce the three to two. I hope that in view of this olive branch of willingness to reduce the number, the Government will consider the matter sympathetically and be prepared
498
to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment movd—
Page 5, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
VISCOUNT HALL: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Does he mean that in the event of the chairman and vice-chairman being full-time members, there should be one other?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, the chairman, deputy-chairman and not less than two other members.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Suppose you had a set-up of chairman and deputy-chairman and one other member, making a total of three. Would the noble Lord be prepared to accept that?
VISCOUNT HALL: If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, we shall be prepared to consider the matter on the lines of his suggestion and bring in an Amendment on Report.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We consider that either the chairman or the deputy-chairman should be whole-time. I agree that it may be possible that both should be whole-time. We say in this Amendment that you ought to have four, and that they should be whole-time members. We are quite prepared to suggest three whole-time members instead of four, but it would be three including the chairman or deputy-chairman.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We shall have to consider words in order to get that in, but we accept this and will insert something on Report.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) Before appointing a person to be a member of an Area Board the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member of the Board and the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every member of the Board that he has no such interest; and any person who is, or whom the Minister proposes to appoint to be, a member of an Area Board shall, whenever requested by the

499
Minister so to do, furnish to him such information as the Minister considers necessary for the performance by the Minister of his functions under this subsection."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that there are two Amendments standing in my name, and since they are intimately related I should like to make a few remarks concerning both.
The objects of these Amendments concern something which is so obviously a matter of normal practice, both in Government organisations and in private industry, that they need little explanation. In the first Amendment, obligation is placed upon the Minister to see that when he is making appointments to the Area Boards no member shall be appointed who may have a financial or other interest which would be prejudicial to his proper functioning on that Board. I suggest that there is another point. It may perhaps be a safeguard to the individuals themselves. More than once, when names of persons who have been appointed to these nationalised boards have been mentioned, one has heard criticism, possibly quite unfair, of the individuals themselves. As regards the second Amendment, here the obligation rests not with the Minister but with the individual; and all that it lays down is that if, in the course of everyday business, a matter arises—perhaps a contract has to be settled—in which that individual may have some interest, then he should disclose any interest which he has. Your Lordships will remember that there are similar clauses in the Transport Act. In the Electricity Act the matter is dealt with, so far as I can remember, by regulations. As I understand the discussions on this point when the matter was dealt with in another place in Standing Committee, it appears to me that it is the purpose of His Majesty's Government to deal with the matter by means of regulations, but in my view the matter should be included in the Bill itself. With those few words of explanation I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say that this Amendment appears merely to be enunciating certain principles of common honesty. Whether
500
you have this matter in the Bill or in regulations, I cannot conceive of any honest man serving on an Area Board without revealing the fact, if it be a fact, that he has a financial interest. Therefore, I have not the smallest objection to this being specified. The noble Lord is right in saying that there has been divergence of practice here. It was specified in the Transport Act. In the case of the Electricity Act, there was an Amendment to the Electricity Bill which was moved by the Opposition in Committee and, upon the Minister's assurance that the matter would be covered by regulations and that he would ensure that the regulations applied both to part-time and full-time members, the Amendment was withdrawn. The noble Lord will be aware that the assurance is carried out by regulation 2 and regulation 3 (1) made under the Electricity Act. So it is by regulation.
When this Bill was in another place, a similar Amendment was moved to have this put in the Bill. Again, the Minister gave the assurance that, following the Electricity principle, he would deal with it by regulations. Upon that assurance being given, the Amendment was withdrawn. I have to give exactly the same assurance to your Lordships—that this matter, which is elementary common honesty, will be dealt with by regulations under the Bill. I think that that is a better method of dealing with it because it is more flexible. If you find that there is any gap, you have not to amend the Act but can do it by regulations. It is perfectly obvious that this ought to be done, whether it is in the Act or is done by regulations. I would ask the noble Lord to agree with me when I say that here we had better follow the principle of the Electricity Act rather than the principle of the Transport Act.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, considers withdrawing his Amendment, would the noble and learned Viscount tell me whether what he has said applies both to the first Amendment and to the second? I can see that a Minister may make regulations as to how a member of an Area Board should act, but can he make regulations as to what he himself, the Minister, should do? I am ignorant upon that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The actual form of the first Amendment wants looking at, because the words are:
"…the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time."
I think that is different from the requirement in the Electricity Act. That imposes a continuous liability upon the Minister to keep a check on these things. Subject to that, the Minister can prescribe by regulation what he himself is to do.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has replied to me upon my Amendment. I see his point. I rather regret that it is not to be put into the Bill itself, but in view of the assurance he has given I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Definition of and variation of areas.
(6) An order made under subsection (2) of this section shall, if and so far as it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variation of areas or the establishment of a new Area Board, provide—
(d) for dissolving any Area Board the whole of whose functions are to be exercised by another Area Board or Boards, and for winding up the affairs of the Board to be dissolved; and
5.44 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved in subsection (6), after paragraph (d) to insert:
"(e) for the payment of compensation by the Board to whom property is transferred to the other Board."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, in cases where property belonging to one Area Board is for any reason transferred to another Area Board, proper compensation shall be paid. We think that unless this compensation is paid, it might be necessary for the Area Board from whom the asset had been transferred to increase the price of gas in order to remunerate the additional capital required to replace the transferred asset. It may be argued by His Majesty's Government that a transfer of property from one public body, such as an Area Board, to another, should not be the subject of compensation; but it is already laid down in the Bill under
502
Clause 50 (6) (b) that compensation is to be paid if property is transferred between the National Coal Board and a Gas Area Board. Then why not between Gas Area Boards? As the Bill stands, it does not appear to be logical. I think it is clear that, under this Bill, Area Boards are responsible for their own financial stability, and are also under an obligation to reduce the price of gas. This Amendment is simply to ensure that, in these circumstances of transfer, the price of gas will not be increased by an Area Board owing to a loss of assets through a transfer of property. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, after ("dissolved") insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I would, in the briefest manner, like to support my noble friend. As your Lordships are aware, each Area Board is responsible for earning the interest on a given amount of Gas Stock and obviously, if the structure is weakened in the way contemplated, the service of the Stock in question may be in jeopardy. The Amendment seems to me to be not only sound but essential, and I have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We do not think that we can accept this Amendment. May I just remind your Lordships how the position stands? First of all, let us take the original payment of compensation. It may have taken the form of an issue of British Gas Stock by the Gas Council, if the property is part of a company undertaking; or it may have taken the form of cash, if Me property was owned by a non-corporate body, an ancillary undertaker or an Electricity Board; or it may have taken the form of the servicing of outstanding debt, if the property has been part of a municipal undertaking. Those are the three heads under which compensation may be given. The adjustment of compensation liabilities between Boards when a transfer of property is made is already covered in the Bill—first, if British Gas Stock issued as compensation is outstanding, by the provision in Clause 43 (2) (a) for the allocation of liabilities in respect of that stock
"having regard to the extent to which the assets… are subsequently transferred to"
a particular Board; and, in any other circumstances, by the provisions in Clause 6 (6) (e) and Clause 24 (3) (c):

503
"for such other financial adjustments… as may be required."
I think we have in the Bill all the requirements we need. I quite see that a matter of book-keeping may be involved in this, but the power already exists in the Bill.
LORD RENNELL: May I ask whether my assumption is right, that an Area Board starts off with a certain mass of capital assets, on the cost of which it assesses the price of the gas which is to be sold in that area? The sale of the gas provides the funds required to service that amount of capital originally taken over. If, at a subsequent date, half of those capital assets are to be transferred from that Area Board to another Area Board, will the cost of gas in the Area Board from which the assets are transferred be diminished by the lesser amount required to service the capital by reason of half of it having been transferred?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Where half of the capital is transferred, presumably half of the sales are transferred too.
LORD RENNELL: I meant the ancillary undertakings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Maybe, but it would tell on both sides. You lose some of your assets, your markets and your sale, and some of your expenses. All those factors would have to be worked out, but there is ample power in the Bill to make all these financial adjustments.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Powers of Minister in relation to Area Boards and Gas Council.
7.—(1) The Minister may give to Area Boards generally or to a particular Area Board or to the Gas Council such directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by those Boards or that Board or the Gas Council of their functions as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national interest, and they shall give effect to any such directions:
Provided that—

(a) before giving any such direction, the Minister shall consult with the Gas Council; and

504

(b) before giving any such direction to a particular Area Board, the Minister shall consult with that Board.

5.50 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to delete subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. It raises, of course, on more general lines, the responsibility of the Minister in relation to Area Boards. We have already discussed this point under Clause 1. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give a clear statement of what they have in mind as to the scope of the directions of a general character which under this clause may be issued by the Minister to the Area Board. What is going to happen if an Area Board challenges the direction given by the Minister on the ground that it is not a direction of a general character? I should like to ask the Government what would be the machinery for dealing with this kind of a possibility, which of course may well arise.
Another point is, how is the national interest to be defined? The Minister may give a direction which is intended to introduce the use of another fuel rather than gas. Would that be in the national interest? In another place, the Minister indicated that he may give a direction covering gas tariffs and, I believe, electricity tariffs; that he could direct a particular Board to vary up or down its charge for gas, which would have the effect of destroying the freedom of choice of fuel. Can that be said to be in the national interest? Such directions may well be due to pressure placed upon him by an interested trade union. We on this side of the House are all in favour of giving the Area Boards as much autonomy as possible. We realise that the Minister must have certain powers of direction; but we feel that the scope of this clause is too widely drawn, and that His Majesty's Government should give your Lordships an explanation as to how these powers of direction are to be used and how the national interest is to be determined. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give an assurance that it is the intention of the Minister to interfere as little as possible with the Area Boards, and that the power of direction will not be used to place one of the members of the

505
trilogy of fuel and power in a more favourable position than another. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can readily give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. May I first of all try to answer his questions? He asked: Who is to determine what is in the national interest? The words of Clause 7 are
"as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national interest."
The Minister will be the judge of that. Then the noble Lord said: Supposing that it were argued that the directions given were not of a general character. If that were argued the case would go to the courts, and an injunction might be granted. It is unlikely to happen, but that is the legal theory underlying the whole thing. The principle we want to establish is, first of all, that we do not want the Minister to interfere with the day-to-day running of this concern—and by day-to-day running I mean to give a pretty wide construction. The normal running of the business is to be done by the Area Boards. They are to be autonomous, and they are to run their own concern on sensible business-like lines with a minimum of interference.
On the other hand, the Minister must have some reserve powers, if only to preserve Parliamentary control—because, of course, it is the fact that the Minister is responsible to Parliament which gives Parliament its control—and rightly so—over the whole matter. Although Parliament in its turn should not, if it is not impertinent to say so, interfere with the normal running of the business, yet it is right that Parliament should have a right to look into everything through the Minister; and of course, it can criticise the Minister, or move to reduce his salary and that sort of thing. I can give the noble Lord this assurance. It is only broad and general matters about which we contemplate the Minister will give directions, and not in regard to the ordinary running of the business. And so long as all goes well, the less the Minister interferes the better. It will probably be only on very important questions on which the Minister may—and I hope he will not—have to give directions. But I am sure it is right that the power should
506
be retained, because that is the essence of our democratic set-up, and it is that power which is therein reserved which gives Parliament control over what is being done.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I noticed that in the reply which the noble and learned Viscount gave he did not make mention of the possibility of the need of this clause for national defence, in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, did in dealing with a similar clause earlier. I was wondering whether there is a possibility of using it for national defence purposes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is one of the matters we have in mind.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. But perhaps one ought to say that, if that is so, it is a procedure which has not often been used before. Up to now, Acts of Parliament like this have been passed without making a specific provision for defence conditions and then, when provision had to be made for those matters, a Defence Regulation was passed. The effect was that the necessary action in defence matters was taken under the regulations, and not under the Act. I de not know whether it is worth asking the noble and learned Viscount whether this procedure is intended to cut out the need for Defence Regulations as and when the time comes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; we do not intend to cut out Defence Regulations at all.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Apart from that, we are still left in a certain amount of doubt as to what the Minister is going to do in the way of dealing with matters in Parliament. How far is he going to be prepared to answer questions, either here or in another place? If we correctly interpret what the noble and learned Viscount has said, not only will the Minister keep to the minimum his activities in regard to the day-to-day working of the Boards, but he will presumably expect that Parliament will also refrain from interfering in, the day-to-day affairs of a business which, if it was not nationalised, would come before a board of directors.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I remember a song to the effect that intelligent statesmen do not usually interfere in matters which they do not understand.

507
This, of course, was a mater of considerable controversy in another place, upon which the Speaker has given a ruling. I am not aware exactly what the ruling is. Of course it is very difficult to draw a line. We can easily say that it falls on this side of the line or that side of the line, but where precisely to draw the line it is difficult to say. I would not attempt to indicate where the line is, but probably in practice there would not be much difficulty in defining it. There has not been much difficulty in regard to the Post Office. There you have the Postmaster-General who is directly responsible, yet the House has never interfered in such matters as whether a particular person shall be appointed to one district or another. I think in practice this will work itself out. But substantially I cannot do more than say that it is only in regard to broad general matters that we contemplate the Minister will interfere at all.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurances given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (3), after "may" to insert "reasonably." The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, I beg leave to propose this very small Amendment. It is hardly more than a drafting Amendment. The object of it is to ensure that the demands of the Minister upon the Area Boards and the Gas Council with regard to the supply of information shall be reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, at end insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Hampton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To show how reasonable I am, I accept this Amendment.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Central Advisory Committee.
".—(1) For the purposes of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect
508
to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the function of the Gas Council under section 2, subsection (3) of this Act and the exercise of the functions of the Area Boards under section 1, subsection (2) (c) and (e) of this Act in relation to directions which may be given by him as regards any such matters or any approval by him of any substantial outlay of capital in relation thereto a Committee (to be known as the Central Advisory Committee) consisting of not less than eleven persons of wide commercial and trading experience shall be appointed by the Minister (after consultation with the various undertakings and interest concerned) from nominees of the various classes of undertakings to be affected by the exercise of such powers of the Gas Council and the Area Boards referred to in this section and of labour trading interest and such other interests as he may deem desirable.
(2) Before giving any such directions or approving any capital expenditure referred to in subsection (1) of this section the Minister shall refer the matter to the Committee for their advice and they shall report thereon to him and shall before making any such report (unless in their discretion they consider it unnecessary or undesirable to do so) give such public notice as they think best adapted for informing persons affected or likely to be affected by the exercise of such functions of the Gas Council or an Area Board or Boards of the date when and the place where they will inquire into the matter, and any persons affected may make representations to the Committee, and, unless in their discretion the Committee consider it unnecessary, shall be heard at such inquiry and if the Committee in their discretion think fit, the whole or any part of the proceedings at such inquiry may be open to the public.
(3) The Committee shall hear such witnesses and call for such documents and accounts as they think fit and shall have power to take evidence on oath and for that purpose any member of the Committee may administer oaths.
(4) Any member of the Central Advisory Committee shall be considered to be acting entirely in a confidential capacity."
The noble Lord said: I am afraid this is rather a long Amendment but I will be as brief as possible in explaining its object. It concerns the power of manufacture, both of plant and fittings, and power to manufacture by-products, and to carry out the processing of them and their distribution.
We have had a discussion earlier this afternoon with regard to the manufacture of plant and fittings and I will not go over that ground again. As regards the matter of by-products I would remind your Lordships that powers exist here for the industry at present to carry out certain production of by-products, and that, in fact, is now done by the industry. Such by-products as benzole, ammonium

509
sulphate and tar readily come to the mind. Under the Bill, these powers of production and distribution of byproducts and their derivatives will, it seems to me, be largely extended. I am not necessarily criticising that. What I am doing is taking the situation as it stands under the Bill, and seeing whether the set-up, as it will be, will be able to work smoothly. It seems to me essential that with the immense ramifications that are possible in production, especially of these by-products, the consultative machinery under the Bill should be absolutely complete and adequate, particularly as regards ability to provide expert advice on these many matters. I believe that there is a very definite gap in the consultative machinery set up in the Bill. Whilst I do not look with favour on there being any further committees appointed, I must admit that I see difficulty in finding any other way of overcoming the gap that exists. Your Lordships know that, when we come to Clause 9, we shall find that consultative councils are set up. But they are for the assistance of the Area Boards; and they deal only with the supply of gas, and not with any of the other matters that I have mentioned. Moreover, they deal only with matters concerning their own areas. It might be that their powers could be extended, but in view of the proposed composition of these councils I doubt it. I doubt whether they would, in fact, be competent to deal with these very difficult matters of processing and so on.
If we turn to a higher level, the level of the Gas Council and the Minister, your Lordships will remember, in view of the Amendment which we were discussing a moment ago, that under Clause 7 the Minster may give directions of a general character either to the Gas Council or to the Area Boards. Your Lordships will remember, too, that under Clause 1 (5) the Area Boards are under the obligation to ask the permission of the Minister when it is a question of making any substantial capital outlay on some such scheme of this nature, whether for the manufacture or processing of by-products. It seems clear, therefore, that the Minister has to come to decisions on matters of this type, and the only people whom the Minister has to advise him are the Gas Council. As your Lordships know, apart from the independent chairman and deputy chairman it consists only of the chairmen of
510
the Area Boards. In other words, when such schemes as may come up for approval are put forward by Area Boards or are put forward by the Gas Council, the only people the Minister will have to advise him will be the very people who are promoting these schemes. Whether they are competent to advise him on such questions is another matter. I find it difficult to believe that in all cases they will always be absolutely impartial.
My Amendment, therefore, seeks to set up this Central Advisory Committee which would contain members possessing expert knowledge of the manufacture of by-products, and their processing and distribution, who would be able to give advice from the very broadest outlook, in the national interest and not merely from the point of view of the gas industry or any other industry affected by the gas industry entering into a new sideline. I have no doubt that in nine cases out of ten they would realise that the existing engineering trade or the existing chemical trade would be able to carry out work of this nature far better than a newcomer to these matters, such as the gas industry. I realise, however, that there will be the tenth case when it may be appropriate for the gas industry to come in on this sort of work. The Amendment contains nothing to prevent the industry so doing. The Amendment is designed simply to ensure that really expert advice is given before these new sidelines, these new ventures, are embarked upon. May I say that I am not particular as to the wording of the Amendment? I put it down in this way in order to bring to notice what to my mind is a definite gap in the consultative machinery proposed to be set up under the Bill. I believe that there is a precedent for this in other Bills and I hope that the Minister will see his way to give this matter careful consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD HAWKE: I would like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Rochdale. I must say, having re-read the Amendment which stands in our joint names, that I would have welcomed provision for this committee or council to be approachable by industry as well as by the Minister. Perhaps, in due course,

511
His Majesty's Government may give thought to that matter. The Amendment seems to me to be one of considerable importance—certainly of an importance far transcending that of the comparatively humble position on these Benches occupied by my noble friend and myself—more in keeping, in fact, with the appalling length of the Amendment. The gas industry is quite unlike the electricity industry, in that gas is really only a sideline. The industry splits up coal into its component parts. As I read the Bill, there is nothing ultimately made out of coal which cannot be made under the Bill by the gas industry. Moreover, the gas industry may well be the only source of the material from which some of these ultimate by-products can be made. Therefore, it not only has the power to compete with the private manufacturing industry but, at the same time, denies to that industry the sole source of its raw material. For that reason, I think it is important that there should be a committee representative of industry to which the Minister can apply for advice before he sanctions capital extensions, and so on, for the Area Boards. Moreover, I think it will provide him with a source of advice which otherwise he might well have to set up in his own Ministry. All of us, including the Government, are only too anxious to keep the Ministry down to as reasonable a size as possible.
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think I can do better than adopt the statement which was made in a speech by Mr. Brendan Bracken when this Amendment was brought before another place, in which he said that the Minister would be well advised to have nothing to do with advisory panels. I think the noble Lord who moved this Amendment felt a little guilty at suggesting that there should be another advisory panel or committee established, because he said that he felt in the ordinary way it would be inadvisable to add more wheels to the coach, or words to that effect. The proposed advisory committee is quite unnecessary, and would, in fact, add to the complications of the machinery. It has been emphasised time after time, during the course of these discussions, that the Area Boards in particular ought to be left free to look after their own business. Yet
512
the noble Lord is suggesting that this advisory machinery should be set up; that it should be, in effect, compulsory over a fairly wide range of business; and that the Minister should have to consult the advisory committee. Naturally, the Minister will in proper cases take advice, and, indeed, the Gas Council has been set up in order that the Minister may have an advisory body to advise him.
The noble Lord says that the Gas Council would not be an appropriate body in a number of cases. But, surely, the Gas Council will be composed of men of wide experience in the business, and if on some particular matter they find that they have no technical assistance, the obvious thing for them to do is to seek technical assistance on that particular point from the men who are best qualified to give it, rather than to have to go to a generalised body of this kind with a very substantial number of members who are, so to speak, set up in advance of the particular problems upon which the Gas Council might wish to seek assistance. We have already had this afternoon, at an earlier stage, a substantial discussion on the question of the manufacture of plant and gas fittings, and I think a sufficient assurance has been given that that will not be embarked upon except in the very unexpected event of some attempt being made to form a price ring, or otherwise to bring pressure to bear upon the industry. That assurance I am glad to repeat. I would go further and give the assurance that, in the event of some price ring or pressure of that kind growing up, the Boards will, if necessary, obtain advice as to how they should go about the business of dealing with that particular problem.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am grateful for the noble Lord's assurances, but I think I am right in saying that we also had the assurance that a Government Amendment on this subject would be brought forward on the Report stage.
LORD CHORLEY: Certainly.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I only wanted to make sure that I was right about that.
LORD CHORLEY: It would, to some extent, cover this point, but it would not go the whole way, because it might still be advisable, having complied with the condition which my noble friend the Lord Chancellor suggested might be put in, that

513
there should be further consultation. I am glad to assure the noble Viscount that those consultations will, if necessary, take place.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has assured us on the subject of gas fittings, and so on, but he has not dealt with the matter of the by-products. What machinery is there available for industry to protest if, say, the gas industry follows coal to its ultimate conclusion and goes in for nylon spinning?
LORD CHORLEY: I think it is obvious that the gas industry will not go in for nylon spinning. Actually, a number of the gas undertakings already have powers to go in for development, in the way of coke and by-products of that kind, and obviously it may be necessary that some developments of that kind should take place. Clearly, however, that would not be done without careful consideration, and after consultation with the people best qualified to give advice, in the way in which I have already indicated.
LORD RENNELL: They would be given careful consideration by whom?
LORD CHORLEY: By the Board which has undertaken the work.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On this Amendment I think the real fear which leads to the necessity of an advisory committee of this sort is not so much about the manufacture of fittings—or, to my mind certainly, the processing of chemicals by the Area Boards themselves—as that customers of the gas industry, who now buy from them certain chemicals, such as tar, acids, sulphates and other things, which they process into a wide range of chemicals, feel that at some future date they may be deprived of supplies, or that the cost of the supplies will be raised in an arbitrary manner. I do not suppose that is likely in the foreseeable future, but it is a possibility. We have the parallel in the Coal Act of the two consumers' councils—the domestic and the industrial consumers' councils. In this Bill we have one consumers' council, in the same way as in the Electricity Act. But as, in the case of gas, the industrial consumers buy not only the gas and the heat from it but, in many cases, the chemicals as well, there would seem to be need for some kind of industrial consumers' council in respect of chemicals and other materials purchased. We had the same difficulty in
514
rather a different way on the matter of coke. There is an Amendment later on which attempts to deal with that point.
We could not expect that the consumers' council could deal with complaints from industry on the matter of chemical and other supplies, although I take it that it is intended in this Bill, in the same way as in the Electricity Act on the matter of current, that the one consumers' council should deal with complaints about the cost of gas. That seems to be a feasible thing. What machinery will there be, not for giving advice to the Minister—because I think quite clearly he is in a position to get all the advice he wants, and the Area Boards and the Gas Council are also—but for a chemical Manufacturer to complain that the tar from the gas industry is costing him too much, is not of the kind which he really requires to buy, or is not made available in sufficient quantities for him to be able to continue satisfactorily? I hope there will be something in the Bill, and I understand that this Amendment is intended to achieve something of that sort. I am not quite sure how it does it, but I read into it that that is what it intends to do. Would the noble Lord tell us whether there is anything in the Bill as it now stands which will do it?
LORD CHORLEY: I think that if this problem came to be a serious one, it could be dealt with in this way—it would be the appropriate way of dealing with it, because it would be a way by which Parliament asserted its control over the situation. Under Clause 1 (5)—your Lordships will remember we looked at that clause earlier—the Minister has to approve of any substantial developments involving capital outlay on a substantial scale. If that happens, it would come not under the ordinary day-to-day management, in which Parliament does not concern itself, but it would be of a character which clearly would entitle Parliament to intervene and call upon the Minister to explain what he was doing. If Parliament did not approve of what he was doing they could then take the appropriate course. I cannot imagine that if a powerful industry such as the chemical industry felt that something was happening which was likely to prejudice its interests and position, it would not see to it that the matter was properly and effectively raised before Parliament.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I say one more thing? I agree that if there was serious trouble in the chemical industry, it is more than likely that the Minister would be bound to take notice of it and do something about it. But I do not think there is anything in this Bill to deal with the matter. I do not think Clause 1 (5) does so, because that concerns itself with matters of re-organisation and works of development. What is troubling my mind is the commercial considerations of trading in various commodities.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for the aspect he has introduced into this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made some play of the fact that when I was moving the Amendment I had occasion to say that I did not want any more committees. I still stick by that. It seems to me that the point underlying this Amendment has not been adequately covered by the reply. I should be happier if the noble Lord would be willing to consider giving a similar assurance on the matter of the production and distribution of by-products as has already been given regarding the manufacture of plant and fittings. I wonder if the noble Lord would be prepared to consider that?
LORD CHORLEY: Obviously I cannot give the noble Lord any undertaking about it now. It might fetter the industry in an important line of development, because obviously there is a close connection between gas and power and the chemical industry. I will certainly have the point looked at, and if there is any way in which I can satisfy the noble Lord, I shall be very glad to do so.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that promise to look into the matter, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Consultative Councils.
9.—(1) A Council, to be known as a Gas Consultative Council, shall be established for the purposes mentioned in this section for the area of every Area Board.
(2) A Gas Consultative Council shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and not less than twenty nor more than thirty other members appointed by the Minister…
6.25 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTONmoved, in subsection (1), after "established" to insert "not later than three months after the vesting date." The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, although a simple one to understand. Under the Electricity Act, and also under this Bill, it is proposed to set up consultative councils in the areas of the fourteen Area Boards as a go-between between the consumers and the Area Boards. It is now eight or nine months since the Electricity Act was passed and three or four months since the industry was vested, and still the consultative councils for the electricity supply industry have not been set up. The object of this Amendment is to say that the gas consultative councils shall be set up within a time-limit of three months from the vesting date. It is true to say that the Electricity Commissioners are still in being; that there is power to abolish the Commissioners when the consultative councils are set up, but that they are acting in the meantime. In the gas industry, however, there are no Commissioners at all, and it is much more important, therefore, that the gas consultative councils should be set up at the earliest date. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will accept this important though small Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, after ("establish") insert ("not later than three months after the vesting date").—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD LLOYD: I would like briefly to support my noble friend's remarks, and to add one thing to what he said about the consultative councils in the electricity industry. He is quite right in saying that none of the councils has yet been set up, although it is more than three months since the vesting date. What he did not mention, and which I think is of some importance, is that electricity prices have already been varied during that period. As the consumers' councils were not there, the consumers really had no say in the matter whatsoever, and their watchdog, which should have been watching, is still not in existence. I should like to make one other point. The Minister, when he was questioned as to why the councils had not been set up, said that the reason was that the qualifications of so many people had to be gone through

517
before the consultative councils could be selected. I quite appreciate that that may be so, but I do not think we can accept that as an excuse. After all, if there are so many people to be considered, the Minister can either start earlier or postpone the vesting date. I think it wrong that the appointment of these consultative councils should be delayed in the manner in which it has been.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am afraid that I must admit that there has been delay in setting up the consultative councils under the Electricity Act. I must also say that the Minister is blameless in this matter. As noble Lords will remember, the persons appointed or nominated to the consultative councils come from a varying number of organisations and a large number of local authorities, and there has been delay in the submitting of nominees to the Minister for his appointment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, there has been a very large number of names—I think the actual number is about 1,400—which take quite a little sorting out. It is in the interests of the efficient working of these schemes that the consultative councils should be set up as soon as possible.
I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, are tying the Minister rather too closely to the vesting date when they suggest three months. After all, three months is very little time. There are twelve of these consultative councils, which will be made up of from twenty to thirty persons, and it is not always easy to get replies from the nominating authorities to nominate the right persons—and we must see that we get the right persons. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment as it is, because it certainly does not give the Minister sufficient time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This seems to be a case where the insertion of a little "ginger" might be necessary. It may be that it is not the Minister but the local authorities who require stimulating, and if they were given some time within which they must put their names in, everybody might be satisfied. After all, if the Councils are not appointed, the real sufferer is the consumer, and it will not be any consolation to him to know that it is not the Minister but the local authorities who are at fault. If the noble Viscount
518
could suggest a time-limit within which the local authorities must do this job, I think everybody would be satisfied. Can the noble Lord suggest an alternative to the three months period?
VISCOUNT HALL: I would be quite prepared to consider fixing some date in consultation with my noble friend, and possibly we might then be able to insert suitable words on the Report stage.
LORD WOLVERTON: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his assurance, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2), to omit "a chairman appointed by the Minister and." The noble Lord said: I would like to suggest that we discuss the first two Amendments standing in my name, together with the last Amendment—on page 9, line 28. The first two are really consequential. The object of these Amendments is very simple: it is to ensure that the gas consultative councils shall elect their own chairman. What is the position with regard to these consultative councils? Surely they are to be a safeguard and a protection for consumers, and as such they should so far as possible be independent; but as the Bill is drawn, we find it laid down that the Minister shall appoint the chairman. I suggest that it would be far better to allow the consultative councils to elect their own chairman, and thereby prevent any feeling amongst the public that it is merely a packed committee. This would ensure that the chairman was elected in accordance with usual committee practice. If the Government do not accept this Amendment, I think it would be possible for the Minister to appoint a chairman who did not in fact enjoy the confidence of the consumers' council. They would thus be forced to have as their representative on the Area Board someone who might differ from the majority of the council. I do not say that this would happen, but it might, and the Bill should be drafted in such a way that it cannot happen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, leave out from ("of") to ("not") in line 10.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I would like briefly to support this Amendment. There seem to me to be three independent

519
reasons for accepting it. The first is that these councils are all appointed by the Minister; but as the Minister chooses the entire council it is not easy to suggest that the chairman can be anybody particularly evil; he is, in fact, someone whom the Minister has chosen though not in the capacity of chairman. It is difficult to see how the Minister could take exception to someone in whom he himself has confidence. The second point is that the happy and harmonious working of such bodies as these committees can be secured only through the good offices and personality of the chairman. I feel that it is not a wise or prudent thing to depart from the correct and conventional practice in such cases by not allowing the members of the Committee to elect their own chairman. It must follow, surely, that when the committee elect their own chairman, their working is much more likely to be smooth and easy than if an arbitrarily imposed chairman is inflicted on them. The third point is this—and I venture to think it is also one of some substance. The chairman of a gas council is ipso facto a member of the Area Board. The councils are there to protect the consumer—and the consumer does not get much protection, because the whole of the gas council is appointed by the Minister. Surely if this council is intended to protect the consumer, and if the chairman has ipso facto a seat on the Area Board, it is not unreasonable that the council should, in the protection of the consumer, nominate their own chairman. I trust that the Government will see their way to accept this eminently reasonable Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALL: As the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, rightly said, the chairman of the consultative council will have a dual function: he will be chairman of the council and he will also be one of the members of the corresponding Board. I think your Lordships will agree that it is important that all the members of the Area Boards, which will be fairly small bodies, should be very competent persons indeed. The chairman of the consultative council should be a man of ability and a person who holds the confidence particularly of the local authorities, as they will be vitally concerned as to consumers' interests. The chairman must, therefore, command respect and at the same time be useful to the
520
Area Board as an administrator. We want the consultative councils to be something other than bodies set up solely for the purpose of criticising Area Boards. They must be taken into complete confidence by the Area Boards; and the chairman, who is a member of the Area Board, would act, of course, as a liaison between the Area Board and the consumers' council. He should also take the consumers' council into his confidence as to the future plans of the gas industry within that area. Indeed, these consumers' councils can be highly constructive bodies, with the chairman acting as their leader in addition to being a liaison between the consultative council and the Area Board.
I can foresee some difficulties if the Amendment were agreed to. The membership of the consumers' council will be a fairly large one—from twenty to thirty members. They will be drawn from all over the area which the Board covers. I think of the Area Board which will be operating in Wales, which is a very wide area. If the consumers' council are faced, say at their first meeting, with the election of a chairman, there may be some difficulty in getting the best man as the chairman and as the member of the Board. In so far as the member of the Board is concerned, I think the nomination should be in the hands of the Minister—taking into consideration of course that the chairman has a dual function. Then difficulties might arise in relation to the period of his office. It can be imagined that some difficulty might arise as to the limits of the period, and also as to a possible break in the continuity of membership of the Area Board. Taking all these facts into consideration, I think the Minister is wise in retaining to himself the appointment of the chairmen of the councils. I think it will be much better in the interests both of the consumers' councils and of the Area Board. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Viscount, but I do not propose to press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
Coal Consumers Council.
".On the notification or making to the Minister by the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council or the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council established under the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act, 1946, of their conclusions or report on any matter relating to the manufacture, production, sale or supply by any Area Board of coke or manufactured fuel, if it appears to the Minister after consultation with the Area Board concerned, and with the Consumers' Council concerned, that a defect is disclosed in the general arrangements of the Area Board for the production, sale or supply of coke or manufactured fuel, he may give to the Board such directions as he may think requisite for remedying the defect, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions."
The noble Lord said: At first sight, this Amendment appears to be rather lengthy. In fact, it is little more than a drafting Amendment.
The Minister of Fuel in another place indicated that complaints about gas coke would be dealt with by the coal consumers' council and not by the gas consumers' council. He went on to say that under Clause 7 of this Bill he had sufficient powers to deal with any complaints about gas coke. But I would point out that Clause 7 of this Bill contains only the same general powers as were laid down by Section 3 of the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act. In addition to those general powers in the Coal Act, we find in Section 4 of that Act very specific powers covering the production and supply of coke and manufactured fuel. We think that similar specific powers should be inserted in this Bill to ensure that, if a defect is disclosed in the general arrangements of an Area Board for the supply of coke or manufactured fuel, the Minister shall have express powers to give directions, after consultation with the Area Board and with the consumers' council, for remedying the defect. As the Bill is drawn, the Minister has only general powers of direction. This new clause would ensure that he has specific powers to deal with the production and sale of gas coke or manufactured fuel. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite follow the point that the noble Lord has in mind in moving this clause. It is of
522
course the fact—it is under Section 4 of the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act, if I remember aright—that the consumers' councils have the right to make representations to the Minister in regard to (amongst other things) the production of coke. Therefore, the only ground upon which I could logically refuse to accept this Amendment is that I was satisfied that the subject matter of this Amendment was already covered by the Bill. What is the subject matter of this Amendment? I read from the last five lines of the Amendment:
"that a defect is disclosed"—
in what?—
"in the general arrangements of the Area Board for the production, sale or supply of coke or manufactured fuel, he may give to the Board such directions…"
and so on. That is the defect with which we deal here. It is a general defect. That being so, it seems to us clear that that is precisely a matter which is covered by Clause 7.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Because Clause 7 says:
"such directions of a general character..as appear to the Minister to be requisite."
Where you are dealing with a general arrangement of the Area Board, which is the subject matter of this Amendment, that is precisely covered by Clause 7. Therefore, we do not want this Amendment. An Amendment to this effect was moved in another place. It was only upon the Minister giving this assurance that the Amendment was withdrawn. Since then, my legal advisers have looked into the matter again and they are quite confident that the advice which they then gave to the Minister was right and that therefore the clause is unnecessary.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I wish to refer to another point that arises here. With regard to consultative councils, mentioned in Clause 9 of this Bill, there are arrangements under subsection (5) whereby:
"Each of the Gas Consultative Councils shall be informed by the Area Board of that Board's general plans and arrangements for exercising…"
and so on. That puts them in a position to advise, and to consider properly and carefully, the whole matter of gas supply.

523
They consider that along with the complaints. Under the Coal Act, the coal consultative council, who deal with consumers' complaints about coke, have not this form of access to the Gas Area Board. So, in fact, they would be reporting to the Minister on the sale or distribution of coke and suggesting arrangements, improvements and alterations without necessarily having had any access to all the facts of the arrangements made by the Board for the supply of coke in their area. I do not think that the Amendment put down meets this, but it would simplify the procedure if there were some way of arranging that if the coal consumers' council can deal with the price of coke from the gas industry, as from the carbonising industry which belongs to the National Coal Board, it would be a convenience and a great help to the Area Gas Boards for them to have a direct contact with the consumers' council and have something similar to Clause 9 (5) so that there is a sort of backwards and forwards arrangement whereby the consumers' council know of the complaints of the Gas Area Boards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to that at all. All this can be done. I have no doubt that these Boards will talk to each other; they will talk to each other if they are sensible. The only point is whether there should be a special power to make them do it. With regard to that, there is already the power under Clause 7.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
Annual reports of Area Boards and Gas Council.
10.—(1) Every Area Board and the Gas Council shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, make to the Minister a report on the exercise and performance by them of their functions during that year and on their policy and programmes.
(4) A Gas Consultative Council shall, as respect each financial year of the Area Board for their area, make to the Board a report on the exercise and performance by the Consultative Council of their functions during that year, and the said report shall be made to the Board as soon as possible after the end
524
of the said financial year, and the Board shall include that report in the report made by them under this section.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"and every Area Board shall as soon as their report has been made to the Minister send a copy thereof to the Gas Council."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simple. It is merely to ensure that the Gas Council will receive the annual reports which are made by the Area Boards to the Minister at the end of each financial year. The Gas Council are responsible for the finances of the Boards and, therefore, we think that they should have an opportunity to consider the annual reports of these Area Boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, at end insert said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is right. Therefore I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am in some difficulty with the next Amendment, for two reasons. The second Amendment on this clause which stands in my name on the Marshalled List has unfortunately been misprinted, in that "line 10" should read "line 5." If I could have your Lordships' permission to correct that error, it would then follow that I should have to seek your Lordships' permission to move that Amendment before the other, because it would automatically fall into that place in the Bill. I gather that your Lordships would agree to that. The Amendment then reads: "Page 12, line 5" and so on, as printed on the Marshalled List. This is a perfectly simple and innocuous Amendment, which proposes that the Gas Consultative Council shall make their report not later than three months after the end of each financial year. I agree that, even as corrected, the wording is not perfect, but if the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to accept it in principle—and I trust that he is—we can easily settle the correct form of English. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("not later than three months after the end of each financial year").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to do that. The words which I am suggesting are these. I agree to look at it again, but at present we have "as soon as possible." I should like to retain the words "as soon as possible," but I think a better solution would be to put it in line 9 in this form:
"and the Board shall, as soon as possible, and not later than three months."
I think that that would be the better way of doing it. If the noble Viscount will not press it now, I will put down something on Report. Will that satisfy the noble Viscount?
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (4), after "year" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"and shall include a statement setting out any matter or thing in respect of which representations have been made to the Minister under section nine of this Act unless such representations shall have been referred by him to any person for inquiry and report."
The noble Viscount said: This is a perfectly simple Amendment and I trust the Lord Chancellor may be able to receive it in the same spirit as he received the first Amendment. The real purpose of it is this. The consultative council does, and is intended to, protect the consumer and, while I do not suggest any bad things, it is essential that its recommendations should not be "scotched" or shelved or put on one side. I would like particularly to call your Lordships' attention to a fact I have stressed in an earlier Amendment—namely, that the consultative council is appointed by the Minister and, as the earlier Amendment was rejected, the chairman also will be appointed by the Minister. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that any matters which the consultative council put forward are worthy of close and careful attention; and I suggest that in the interests of the consumer we should ensure that these matters do receive immediate attention. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will feel able to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 8, after ("year") insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment because I do not think it is a very good one. The position is as follows. Under Clause 9, subsection 6, of the Bill:
"the Area Board shall consider any conclusions, reports and representations notified or made to them by the gas consultative council for their Area under the last two preceding subsections, and that the council may, after consultation with the Area Board, make representations to the Minister."
That is to say, if at their first try they cannot get satisfaction from the Area Board they can then carry their complaint to the Minister. In subsection (7) the noble Viscount will see words to this effect: Where representations have been so made to the Minister and appears to him that there may be a defect, then he may refer the matter to inquiry. The object of the Amendment seems to me to deal with the case where the consultative council have made representations and the Minister has not called for an inquiry. The reason why no inquiry has been called for would be because the Minster thinks that the complaint is not a reasonable one. The consultative council may sometimes put forward rather a silly case and there may be a complete answer to it. Sometimes that happens when a noble Lord moves an Amendment and, when he hears the answer, he wishes he had not moved it. It is very hard, in those circumstances, that complaint should be a matter of compulsion.
The noble Viscount wishes the report to include a statement. The complaint may, as I say, have been a very silly one and it may have been blown completely sky high when it was answered. In those circumstances it is better buried and forgotten. Do not let us make the unfortunate consultative council advertise to the world and his wife that they have made a rather silly remark. On the other hand, the council have a perfect right to put in anything they like. With great respect to the noble Viscount, I do not see any point in taking up matters which are not worth taking up. It is much better to leave it to them in their discretion to put in what they like, so as to avoid the happening of the unfortunate thing I have indicated. For that reason I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am not altogether happy about the answer given by the noble and learned Viscount. It is

527
the first time that he and I have engaged in open warfare. He has never before compared me to either a dead body or a nominee of the Minister. But these things I gladly forgive him because of his great courtesy and patience on all the occasions I have addressed him. I cannot feel happy about this matter. If these complaints are not altogether with substance, I still do not see why we should not know that they have been made. But I do not feel that the matter is one of real importance and I have no wish to detain your Lordships. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Compulsory purchase of land.
(2) in this section the expression "land" includes easements and other rights over land, and an Area Board may be authorised under this section to purchase compulsorily a right to place a gas pipe across land, whether above or below ground, and to repair, maintain and remove the pipe, without purchasing any other interest in the land.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (2):
"Provided that an Area Board shall not be authorised to purchase compulsorily a right to place a gas pipe above ground unless the Minister shall be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to place it below ground."
The noble Viscount said: As the clause now stands, it gives the Minister power to authorise Area Boards to exercise certain powers of compulsory purchase. My Amendment is designed to make certain that an Area Board shall not be authorised to purchase compulsorily a right to place a gas pipe above ground unless it has been expressly authorised by the Minister so to do. We have had differences of opinion throughout this debate as to whether there should or should not be centralisation, and this seems to be a case where it is very much in the interests of the public that the right to authorise compulsorily a gas pipe or main being placed above ground should be carefully guarded and should be given only by the Minister—I am talking about compulsory authority and not about anything else.
In the course of the passage of the Bill through another place this matter did arise, and some of us on these Benches had thought that an Amendment would be moved by noble Lords opposite. That turned out not to be so, and, for that reason, we have put down this Amendment. When I first saw this Amendment I admit I did not realise how important it was to make this safeguard. I had seen very few gas mains put above ground, but I am told there is in technical circles the thought that in the future it may become much more desirable from a technical point of view to place gas mains above the ground. If that is so, I certainly think that the public ought to be protected, as they are protected under the present Electricity Act, from having overhead gas mains placed compulsorily all around them. Therefore I think the Amendment is a very necessary one. Apart from amenities, there is also the question of danger. Despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer so often tells us, we still smoke a great many cigarettes, and I need hardly make a long speech to remind your Lordships of the danger to the public from a leaking or burst main if it were above ground. For those reasons I hope this Amendment or some Amendment that means the same thing will be accepted, and that we shall jealously guard the power to place gas mains over land by compulsory purchase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is a reasonable point. In the discussion in another place the Attorney-General gave an assurance that the Minister will not assent to the compulsory acquisition of this right to lay a pipe above ground unless it is the only practicable course. The noble Viscount is moving an Amendment to give effect to the undertaking given by the Attorney-General. As such, therefore, I can accept it in principle, and one of two things can happen: I can either accept it now, reserving to myself the right to modify it on Report stage, or perhaps it will be more convenient—because it may be a rather substantial alteration—that the noble Viscount should rest content with the undertaking I give to accept it in principle. The words about which I have

529
a little apprehension are "reasonably practicable." I would like to be quite sure about this matter. I think it is all right. But suppose it is practicable to carry them below ground but it means that it is going to cost a great deal of money in comparison to the cost of laying them above ground, or perhaps over a canal or river. That could be easily done, with no engineering difficulty about it. It might cost ten times as much as the other way, and the Minister, in those circumstances, might say: "This is an occasion where I think I ought to say the pipes should be above ground." I am not sure about the words "reasonably practicable." I want to consider them, but I will leave it to the noble Viscount to decide what he will do. I will accept the Amendment if he likes, reserving to myself the right to alter it when the Report stage is reached. But I would prefer that he should let me consider the whole matter to see whether I cannot agree a clause with him and put it down on the Report stage. That, of course, would mean the noble Viscount withdrawing his Amendment now.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has met us on this matter. I will certainly do as he prefers. On the understanding that the Government will put down something on the Report stage to meet this point, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Undertakers to whom Part II of Act applies.
15.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section, this Part of this Acts applies to—

(a) every person who carries on a gas undertaking authorised by any enactment;

(b) every person who carries on a gas undertaking not authorised by any enactment but providing supplies of gas the whole or main part of which was, during the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, consumed by persons other than the undertaker, any subsidiary or holding company of the undertaker, and any subsidiary of a holding company of the undertaker; and

(c) every company which—

(i) had, at the date of the last audited balance sheet of the company before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
530
forty-eight, one or more subsidiaries, being statutory undertakers or non-statutory undertakers (as hereinafter defined) and

(ii) at the said late held securities of, or rights in respect of loans made to, the said subsidiaries, the value of which as shown in that balance sheet, amounted to not less than seventy-five per cent. of the total amount of all the assets of the holding company as so shown;

and references to an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies shall be construed as referring to such a person or company as aforesaid:

Provided that this Part of this Act shall not apply to the National Coal Board or the British Transport Commission
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to the proviso to subsection (1):
"nor shall it apply to any gas holding company (as hereinafter defined), who serve on the Minister not later than two months after the passing of this Act, a notice stating that they wish to be treated in the same way as other holders of securities of any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies and in such event, that company shall be deemed never to have been a gas holding company."
The noble Viscount said: The noble and learned Viscount feel that at times I may have moved an Amendment which I have later wished I had not moved. I hope that he will respond to my appeal and give me further encouragement to move Amendments in the future. This Amendment, I can assure him, is perfectly innocuous. It does not seek preferential treatment for anybody. I may add that I myself have no connection with any gas holding company. I do not hold any shares in any such company, and I have no connection, either direct or indirect, with one.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to allow the holding company, on giving notice, to be treated as any other holder of gas securities. The effect of this would be that a holding company not giving the notice would have its own shares taken over as on the basis provided in Clause 25. If it gives the notice, two things happen. First the shares of the companies which it owns, either in whole or in part, would be taken over on the basis provided in the Bill instead of this happening to the shares of the holding company itself. The second thing that would happen would be that the holding company itself would remain in existence. There cannot be any objection to this. The company has an organisation, and may have property outside the gas industry, and there can be

531
nothing essentially wrong in allowing it to remain in existence if it wishes. This Amendment does not prescribe any preferential treatment. It merely asks that a holding company should, if it wishes, be treated as any other holder of gas securities. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot respond wholeheartedly, as the noble Viscount would like me to do, to his attractive invitation. This Amendment really would not do. It would give every gas holding company complete freedom to opt in or out of the vesting provisions of the Bill as it pleased. Indeed, if it were accepted, there would be little point in retaining the gas holding company as a category of undertaking to be vested. The tests laid down in Clause 15 (1) (c)—they will be found at the bottom of page 13—are intended to identify those holding companies which are concerned in the administration and control of gas undertakings to such a degree that they are quite clearly part and parcel of the industry which is being nationalised, and so can reasonably be treated as proper subjects for vesting in the same way as gas undertakings generally. I had the curiosity to get a list of these companies—I dare say the noble Viscount knows about these things, but if not I will gladly show him the list—and I find that there are ten of them. With one exception, they are companies which are in it "up to the neck." The point of taking over these holding companies is that the Gas Council get their experts, their central organisation, their accountants and so on, which may be very valuable. There can be no question about these holding companies, save one in respect of which it has been suggested that an exception should be made—that is, North Cambrian Holdings Limited. It is a comparatively small concern; its total assets are £190,000. It has one subsidiary, a composite gas and water company, and no other extraneous interests. Now it happens to be a private company—I do not want to put ideas into the noble Viscount's head.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: If they are profitable ideas, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will certainly do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, just thinking aloud, let me make this supposition. Suppose that an Amendment were to be suggested at page 13, line 41, defining what these companies are. Suppose that I said: "Every company not being a private company," and made that my definition of a company. Then the noble Viscount would see that the company to which I have been referring would be out of the provision because it is a private company. It would go out. If that is the substance of the noble Viscount's point—and I gather that it may be—I will tell him that if I were severely pressed on that topic, it is possible, under that very strong pressure, that I should wilt and give way. I should have to explain to the Minister, of course, that I had been severely pressed. It may be that that will meet the noble Viscount, but that is as far as I can possibly go. No possible pressure will make me go further. If that idea is any good to him, there it is. But I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: It struck me that the noble and learned Viscount did not put the matter in quite his usual lucid perspective. The fact is that by our Amendment he will get everything he wants, which are gas securities, owned by these holding companies. But, unfortunately under this he will not get the staff. If it were suggested to us that there should be provision that the technical staff should pass over, I see no reason why perhaps something on that line might not be done. The arithmetic of it is perfectly simple. I think the noble and learned Viscount will admit that he is denying justice to the shareholders of these companies. The simple essence of the matter in principle is that when the holding company receives from the gas companies dividends which it does not distribute in full, its shares do not stand as high as they might do. Now His Majesty's Government come along and take over the shares of the component companies on the basis of the quotation of the shares of the holding company, whereas if they take them separately, on the basis of the shares of each company, they would probably have to pay a little more. The difference represents moneys

533
which shareholders have not received in the past, and which they have some expectation of receiving in the future, whether by way of bonus, liquidation or something of that kind. I think it is a denial of justice to say that you insist on taking these stocks and shares on the basis of the quotation of the holding company, when it would be more just to take them on the basis of the individual companies, as you would do under our Amendment. As I said before, we would certainly be prepared to consider any method by which the technical staff may pass over. Having heard that, I hope that the noble and learned Viscounts heart may be melted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my heart has not been melted. I would point out to the noble Lord that in a short time we are coming to an Amendment of fundamental importance, which raises the whole question of whether we shall operate on the basis of Stock Exchange values. If I may contemplate a gloomy contingency, it is, of course, just possible that the Government may be defeated on that point. In that very unlikely event, then, of course, Stock Exchange values go by the board.
LORD HAWKE: In that case, there is no harm in accepting our Amendment.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. In this matter I am more innocent than he supposes. I am grateful for the thoughts which he has put into my mind. On the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I gladly accept what he has offered, although it does not amount to much. I certainly do not feel able to put on him that extreme and intensive pressure which he feels necessary, but, none the less, I hope that the half loaf will not be denied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Might we not now close with the Lord Chancellor, in case he should be less amenable next time? I beg to move in line 41, after "company", to insert "not being a private company."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, after ("company") insert ("not being a private company").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather that the noble Viscount is pressing me to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am pressing most strongly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Reluctantly, I will agree to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to
Clause 16:
Determination of questions as to application of Part II of Act.
16.—(1) The Minister shall, within the prescribed period, serve on every person who in his opinion is an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies other than a statutory undertaker a notice stating that that person is in his opinion such an underaker and also stating in which of the categories mentioned in subsection (2) of the last preceding section that person in the Minister's opinion is included, and—

(a) unless that person contends by a counter notice served on the Minister, within two months after the service of the Minister's notice, that in his opinion this Part of this Act does not apply to him and the counter notice is not withdrawn, this Part of this Act shall be deemed to apply to him; and

(b)unless that person contends by a counter notice served as aforesaid (and not withdrawn) that in his opinion he is included in a different category of undertaker, he shall (subject to any contention that this Part of this Act does not apply to him) be deemed to be included in the category stated in the notice of the Minister.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1), to omit "within the prescribed period," and insert "not later than three months after the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: This is also, I trust, a perfectly innocuous Amendment. It does not in any way relate to the statutory companies; it relates to what I call the border-line cases. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that they shall not have to wait an undue length of time before being told of their position. There are not a very great number of them—some 400, I believe—and it appears to me that a measure of hardship may be involved in the case of these small undertakings if they do not know in a reasonable measure of time where they stand. I suggest that the period of three months proposed is not unreasonable, and that it should be well within the competence of the authorities to send out the appropriate notice within that time. I

535
gather that they wish to obtain still further information in regard to these border-line concerns. But the time is running on; some months will elapse before the vesting day and, therefore, I see no reason why the information needed cannot be gained by that time, and the notice sent out within the three months which I propose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to ("serve") and insert ("not later than three months after the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely sympathise with the object of the noble Viscount. It is quite obvious that this is in the interests of everybody concerned and, in fairness to the companies, it should be done with a minimum of delay. There are, as he said, about 400 undertakings concerned here. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty at all with regard to, say, 390 of them, but there will be the border-line and marginal case which will be very difficult. With regard to that case, it may be necessary to collect a good deal of preliminary information, and that preliminary information may, in its turn, be dependent upon the regulations to be made under Clause 39—the production of documents and records. In a few odd cases like that it may be impossible to adhere to a time which, for all normal cases, is too long. That is my difficulty, and I put it quite frankly to the noble Viscount. There may be these few cases, and if we are to try to conform to a time, which in the vast majority of cases is a perfectly reasonable time, we shall be in difficulty. That being so, I would ask the noble Viscount to accept the Minister's assurance that he will in his own interest, in the interest of the companies, and of everybody, do this in the shortest possible time. I have little doubt that in the vast majority of cases we shall be able to work within the three months which the noble Viscount has in mind, but there may be the odd case, and it is that which prevents me from accepting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I gladly accept the assurance he gives on
536
behalf of the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Payments in respect of reserves of composite companies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When this Bill was printed the Companies Act, 1948, had not become law. We were working on the Companies Act, 1947. Now, thanks to the energy of those who have been working on this matter, we have been able to do what I promised I would try to do—namely, bring out our Consolidated Act. Consequently, we can now make the necessary Amendments to make it "1948." This occurs a number of times in the Bill, and your Lordships will realise why it is that I am moving these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("First") and insert ("Eighth").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the same principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 45, leave out ("1947") and insert ("1948").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Disclaimer of agreements and leases.
22.—(1) Where there are vested in any Area Board or in the Gas Council the rights, liabilities and obligations of any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies, being rights, liabilities and obligations under an agreement made or varied on or after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the Board or Council are of opinion that the making or the variation of that agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said undertaker or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the said undertaker, the Board or Council may, by notice in writing given to the other parties to the agreement before the expiration of three months from the vesting date, disclaim the agreement:
Provided that any of the said parties may, within the prescribed period from the date on which the notice is served, refer to arbitration under this Act the question whether or not the agreement or variation thereof was reasonably necessary as aforesaid, or was made

537
or varied with unreasonable lack of prudence, and, on such arbitration, the arbitration tribunal, if satisfied that the agreement or variation was not reasonably necessary as aforesaid or was made or varied with unreasonable lack of prudence, shall confirm the notice and if not so satisfied shall revoke it.
7.20 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved in subsection (1), to leave out "made or varied" (where that phrase first occurs) and insert "or variation of an agreement, made." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, the succeeding Amendment, and a number of consequential Amendments, are an endeavour on our part to try and improve what at the moment we think is a very unsatisfactory clause. It is unsatisfactory for two reasons. The first is because of the ambiguity which attaches to such words as "not reasonably necessary" or "unreasonable lack of prudence" After all, there are a great many actions which at the time may seem to those responsible both necessary and prudent but which may appear to other people, when they review them later, to be very wrong and neither necessary nor prudent. May I give an example? No doubt His Majesty's Government were acting in perfectly good faith when they nationalised the bulk of our industries at the time of our greatest economic crisis, but there are a number of noble Lords on these Benches who consider that action to have been neither necessary nor prudent. From that point of view, this clause is somewhat unsatisfactory.
But that is not the only reason why it is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because it penalises not the gas company (who might conceivably have learnt whether anything was necessary or prudent) but the unfortunate third party who could not have had the foggiest idea whether anything was necessary or prudent. The gas undertaker is abolished, and the fellow who has his contract disclaimed, or has to go to the expense of arbitration to prove that the agreement was all right, is the third party. That seems to us rather unfair. As it stands, the clause appears to afford the clearest warning to all people who are intending to do business with industries under the threat of nationalisation, that they only do so at their own peril.
This Amendment is a very simple one, and I genuinely think that it will improve
538
this clause. What it seeks to do is to ensure that the minimum of inconvenience and dislocation shall come about as a result of the operation of this clause. Suppose that there was an agreement ten years old, that during the last three years that agreement has been varied for any reason, and that the Area Board take exception to that variation. Suppose further that they go to arbitration and it is proved that there has been an unreasonable lack of prudence; then, as the clause stands, the Area Board, if they wish to exercise their right of disclaimer, have to disclaim not only the part to which they object, but the whole agreement, even though the rest of the agreement is perfectly satisfactory and not such as they would wish to disclaim at all. This seems to me to be an. Amendment which would be an advantage, not only to the third parties—because it will mean that a great many more agreements will stand than would stand under the clause as it at present exists—but also to the Area Boards, because they will not want to disclaim all these agreements in full; they may wish to disclaim only part. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 37, have out ("made or varied") and insert ("or variation of an agreement, made").—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I cannot yield to the seductive voice of the noble Lord. I think he has not quite thought this matter out, if he will forgive my saying so. Let us analyse it for a moment. You have an agreement which I will call Agreement No. 1. At a later date you vary that agreement, and what do you arrive at?—Agreement No. 2 Now Agreement No. 2 is the agreement, and Agreement No. 1 has gone. You cannot reinstate Agreement No. 1—it may be absolutely impossible. One can give any number of illustrations. Take a case like this. An officer of a gas company is employed at a salary of £2,000 a year, and he has a pleasant residence in the vicinity of the gas company which he is allowed to occupy free of rent and rates. The gas company come to the conclusion that they want that house for other purposes—perhaps for extension of their works, or what you will—so they vary the agreement and, instead of giving him £2,000

539
a year with the house and amenities, they give him £5,000 a year. What happens? Perhaps they pull the house down. If you are operating that £5,000 a year agreement, you cannot go back to the other agreement—it may be absolutely impracticable and impossible.
If I may say so, the Amendment springs from the fallacious idea that where there is an agreement which, historically, was arrived at by reason of it being a modification or a variation of an earlier agreement, lurking in the background there is some ghostlike previous agreement. There is not. It has gone. It may be absolutely impossible to reinstate and people may not want it to be reinstated. Therefore, on analysing the matter, it is impossible to accept any of this series of Amendments. I quite understand the point which the noble Lord has in moving them, and to some extent I sympathise with him. I think he will come to the conclusion that the Amendment he is proposing would not work. I am sorry that I cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor would enlighten us on this point. This problem gives us a great deal of trouble every time we consider one of these Bills. I remember that, with the help of all the great lawyers in the House, we worked out on either the Transport or the Electricity Act something which I do not say we liked very much, but which, with all the legal difficulties with which we were confronted, seemed on the whole to be fairly reasonable. It always seems unfair that one should, ex post facto, ask whether an action has been wise. The advice of the Lord Chancellor, when he was at the Bar, seemed very good advice when he was sitting in his chambers; but when his predecessor on the Woolsack delivered the final judgment against him in the House of Lords, it turned out to be not very prudent advice. But it would be unfortunate for the Lord Chancellor if he had to return his fees and pay something more because the case went against him.
That really is the sort of way in which we were rather anxious the Act should not work. I gather that the lawyers now assure us that that sort of thing cannot happen. I remember at the time I wanted to put in the words "mala fides" because, being a simple person, I thought
540
that whether an agreement was wise or unwise was a matter of business and almost impossible to job back and judge back upon. But I do understand the difference between good faith and bad faith—at least I did until a day or two ago. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us whether, when a thing has been done decently and in good faith, the agreement is perfectly safe; and secondly, whether it follows accurately upon the decision on which we finally compromised when considering the Electricity Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not checked this, but I have a recollection of this argument on the Electricity Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It arose mainly on the Coal Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. We considered this point first of all on the Coal Bill and then we had it on the Electricity Bill. I was persuaded to make some small concession on the Electricity Bill and I understand that that small concession is also contained here. Therefore, I think we have followed the Electricity Act, which was rather better for the noble Lord than the Coal Act. Of course, it is utterly fallacious to job backwards and to judge in the light of after events whether an agreement was reasonable or not. One must forget what happened afterwards and judge it as at the time it was made. Your Lordships will see that if there is a difference of opinion here, there is room for arbitration. There is the question whether or not the agreement or the variation thereof was reasonably necessary, or was made with unreasonable lack of prudence. An instruction is given to the arbitration tribunal to direct their minds to the time at which the agreement was made. I have no doubt that if they were not satisfied that the agreement was unreasonable then, they would support and uphold it. I think, therefore, that I have done everything I can to meet the point.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his extremely lucid exposition of this matter. On a legal point of this kind I would not presume to argue, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON: As the next Amendment seems likely to involve a fairly lengthy argument, perhaps it would be convenient if I suggested that the House should now adjourn, and meet again at nine o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended at half past seven and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (1), to omit "nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five" and insert "twenty-third day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is another attempt to improve this clause which is still not an entirely satisfactory clause. I have already referred to two of the aspects of the clause which I think are rather unsatisfactory; that is to say, the ambiguity of its wording in some respects and the fact that it penalises a third party who is almost certainly entirely innocent. I cannot help feeling that this clause must act as a deterrent to enterprise to all those who do business with industries threatened with nationalisation. After all, when we are legislating for one particular industry which is being nationalised, we have to look ahead to see what the effect of what we are doing now will be upon other industries which are likely to be nationalised in the future.
As your Lordships will see, the object of this Amendment is to change the date which is contained in this clause, so far as this question of the disclaimer of agreements is concerned. This clause is no stranger to us; in fact it is an old friend—or, from our point of view, an old enemy. We had it last year in the Electricity Bill. On that occasion, having expressed the same doubts as I have expressed this evening, I ventured to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he could not do something to clarify the position (this was on Electricity) as regards the gas industry, which we all knew at that time was likely to be nationalised in the near future. The noble and learned Viscount on that occasion was not—perhaps he could not help it—very helpful. He said that he could not deal with gas, and then he went on to say—I am paraphrasing what he said—that there would be a date of some kind but that at that time the gas people were quite untrammelled and they could do as they liked. The question was of a clause dealing with
542
the dissipation of assets. I am not suggesting that his statement was in any way inaccurate, so far as the dissipation of assets is concerned, because the date is January of this year. Therefore, technically speaking, he was entirely correct in what he said. But, at the same time, it is extremely difficult to do much in the way of dissipation of assets or anything else without making some kind of an agreement. You cannot dispose of property or land. Indeed, I understand that even if you sign a cheque in payment for something or other, that, technically, is an agreement.
Therefore, it is difficult to dissipate assets without making some kind of an agreement. That is really the point of this Amendment, because it seems to me very illogical and extremely unfair that there should be two different relevant dates concerning two clauses which are so closely interlocked as these two classes. In the case of the dissipation of assets, it is unfair, I think, from the point of view of the people concerned within the industry because, in the case of the dissipation of assets, the people penalised are the gas workers themselves, who presumably have some idea whether or not they are dissipating their assets. In the case of the disclaimer of agreements, as I have already pointed out, the people penalised are not the undertakers, because they have already been dissolved. The people penalised are the third parties—namely, the people who do business with them.
When we examine the two different dates, however, we find that where it is a case of dissipating assets the period is only a year, whereas when we come to the disclaimer of agreements we find that any agreement can be disclaimed so far back as November, 1945. That seems very unfair, because the people affected are the third parties, who in any case could not have known whether any particular agreement was either necessary or prudent from the point of view of the gas undertaker, and still less could they have known it two years before the Bill was introduced. They could not possibly know what were the contents of the Bill. But it does not only work unfairly as between the undertaker and the third party. In my opinion it acts unfairly as between the different industries that are nationalised because, after all, the date in all these Bills has been November, 1945. The

543
period in the case of the gas industry is a year longer than it was in the case of the electricity industry; and, no doubt, if noble Lords opposite intend to nationalise steel at a later date, that will be a year later still. Therefore, the later the industry is nationalised, the longer is the period of uncertainty and the worse the dislocation—which seems rather bad luck on those who happen to be nationalised last.
This Amendment tries merely to link the two dates, and to make a new date for both the dissipation of assets and for the disclaimer of agreements. In this case it will reduce to the minimum the period of uncertainty for the third parties with regard to agreements, and it will ensure that no third party is penalised for making an agreement at a time when the Bill in question was not even published. That is the first advantage. The second advantage is that it brings these two clauses—namely, the dissipation of assets and the disclaimer of agreements, into line. Finally, it legislates fairly between the different industries which are to be nationalised by giving the same date—namely, the date of the publication of the Bill—as the date governing this clause on disclaimer of agreements instead of making it a different date for different industries. I do not myself feel that there is any particular sanctity about this date of November, 1945, unless it be that that was the occasion when the Lord President in another place said that various industries including gas were to be nationalised.
I would like to remind your Lordships of certain things the Lord President said on that occasion, and I will quote from his speech in volume 416, column 36, where he said:
"During the interval which will necessarily elapse before the plans outlined can be presented to Parliament and carried into effect, all necessary development in the industries concerned must proceed. The Government therefore propose to see that progressive undertakings will not be prejudiced if they continue to develop in the interim period."
I am sure the noble and learned Viscount must agree with that admirable sentiment; indeed he has already agreed with it, because on the Electricity Bill he said:
"It is of the utmost importance that people should not be petrified into inaction in this matter. Development must go on."
544
If we are to have the minimum of uncertainty and the maximum of development I suggest that this Amendment will do a great deal to help, and for that reason I hope the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 38, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("twenty-third day of January, 1948").—(Lord Lloyd.)
9.5 p.m.
LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of this Amendment is to substitute as the operative date for the purposes of this clause January 23, 1948—the date of the publication of the Gas Bill—for November 19, 1945—the date of the announcement made by the Lord President to Parliament of the Government's nationalisation proposals. In making that announcement, the Lord President specifically referred to the intention to nationalise the gas industry and he said this:
"in the lifetime of this Parliament the Government intend to introduce measures to bring under national ownership the electricity supply industry and the gas industry."
He added these words:
"The Government will naturally take precautions in its legislation to protect the acquiring authority against any transactions entered into in the interim period, whether by way of contract or otherwise which may prejudice that authority."
That is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for November 19, 1945, Volume 416, columns 35 and 36. So the gas industry was warned well in advance that legislation in respect of contracts would be retrospective in its effects. It has also had the experience of the Transport and Electricity Acts, where similar powers were taken to disclaim agreements made or varied on or after November 19, 1945.
We regard it as essential that these powers should be retained in this Bill to ensure that any onerous, and possibly long-term, agreements entered into during the past two or three years with a view to defeating the ends of nationalisation may be challenged. I do not say that there were any—I do not know. I say that there could have been such agreements. If there were such agreements I think it would be wholly wrong to allow them to stand. I would point out that the contracting parties are protected by the proviso in subsection (1) which enables questions arising on disclaimer to be

545
referred to arbitration. Moreover, to avoid any unnecessary embarrassment to undertakings through fear of genuine contracts being arbitrarily challenged much later, there is provision in subsection (7) for excluding from the scope of the clause any agreement or lease made or varied with the consent of the Minister of Health or with the approval of the Minister of Power.
I come to what was said in the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and I need hardly say that the poor old Lord Chancellor got into trouble again. I will say this to your Lordships. I do not for a moment claim that in all the observations I have made on all these various Bills I have not made a large number of mistakes. All I can claim is, having regard to the number of Bills that I have dealt with, I should be more than human if I had not. All I can undertake to do is to serve your Lordships to the best of my ability. My next quotation, I think, illustrates what I say about something being divorced from its context. May I read to your Lordships what was said in the Committee stage? Mr. Raikes on July 23, 1947, said:
"No less a person than the Lord Chancellor made a statement in regard to the disclaimer provisions in the Electricity Bill in which he said that the gas people are quite untrammelled, and are not controlled, but can do what they like. It is a little surprising…to find that what the Lord Chancellor said has been made retrospectively untrue by the provision in this Bill."
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter went a little further and said:
"In the light of the attitude the Government are taking, the Lord Chancellor was talking nonsense—and misleading nonsense at that."
What did I say? I made my remarks in answer to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. Lord Lloyd asked me:
"But what is the position of the gas companies? There is nothing specifically in writing to protect them. Would he be able to give us an assurance that the gas companies, if they write to the Minister, will be exonerated."
What I said in answer to that question was this:
"I cannot, I am afraid, deal with gas. But after all, when you do get a gas Bill—if and when you do—you will no doubt have some date, just as there is in connection with this Bill, January 10, 1947—which I. think was the date of the introduction of the Bill. You will have some sort of date of that sort,
546
I should think. At the present time the gas people are quite untrammelled. They are not controlled, and they can do as they like. I cannot, do anything about them."
What was the clause with regard to which I made those observations? Those observations were made in a discussion of a clause dealing with the reopening of transactions resulting in the dissipation of assets.
LORD LLOYD: That is not what I said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not complaining about the noble Lord for the moment. He is much too fair-minded to attempt to misrepresent me. I am now dealing, as I think I am entitled to deal, with the misrepresentations in another place. He was dealing with the reopening of transactions resulting in the dissipation of assets, and Clause 36 is the corresponding clause in this Bill He was not dealing with disclaimers of agreements. It was an entirely different clause. I am bound to say that it so happens—perhaps it is a remarkable thing—that my statement was perfectly accurate, and has not been falsified by any provision in this Bill. The corresponding Clause 36 in the Gas Bill operates, as in fact I forecast, only from the date of introduction of the Bill—namely, January 23, 1948. As I indicated, the transactions entered into by the gas companies before that date are not subject to control, and are not liable to be reopened by the Area Boards. The position in regard to agreements is quite different, since if no precautions were taken the ill-effects of these could be perpetuated long after the vesting date. You can have an agreement lasting into the indefinite future. I made no reference to the position of gas companies, as the noble Lord frankly stated—in fairness, he would—in relation to a disclaimer of agreements. As I have already said, the Gas Bill in this respect, in fixing November 19, 1945, follows the Electricity and the Transport Acts. All I would say in self-defence—I am not deeply concerned to defend myself, so long as I think all your Lordships know that I did the best I could—is that it so happens that, in this case, my statements were perfectly accurate. But if you take my statements out of their context, and apply them to a different subject matter altogether, it is easy to say that I am

547
talking nonsense, and dangerous nonsense. I consider that it might be appropriate that people who make observations of that sort should, before making them, understand what is the context of what is being said.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: For my part, I should like to say at once that I think there can be no real comment made about the statements of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on the previous occasion. He has explained how the phrase which he used has been subject to misconception—and, I am quite sure, honest misconception—in another place. Let us accept that, and regard the Lord Chancellor as being, in this respect at least, absolutely immaculate. That does not really answer the Amendment which has been moved. I would point out, with regard to that, that the phrase which is used in Clause 22, whatever it may be in other Acts of Parliament, is not the subject for discussion. Whatever may be the words in those other Acts, I think there is a strong reason here for not dating back the period mentioned in Clause 22 to so distant a date as November 19, 1945.
I found my opinion to that effect—and I am quite sure I shall be credited with founding it honestly at any rate—on the curious phrase:
"…that the making or the variation of that agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said undertaker…"
Those words may be just if you have a comparatively short date. To go back to what I regard as the distant past, simply because you think that the agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the undertaker, is really to mean that whenever you like you can come to the conclusion that something was not "reasonably necessary"—I am emphasising the word "necessary"—even in the case where the undertaker has, in completely good faith, done something which was no more than expedient for the future of the undertaking. It is all very well to say that the Government intend to bring a Bill before the House of Commons, but after all you do not know when it will come; you do not know whether it will be persevered in, and you do not know how long it will take before it will pass into law.
548
In the meantime, as I recollect, we have been told in other cases—and I think in this case—that it is desirable that the undertakers shall go on with their business in just the way in which an honest undertaker would carry on his business, whether or not a Bill was threatened. I am sure that I am not exaggerating the case when I say that in the case of any undertaker who carries on his business in a way in which we should like all people to carry on their business—namely, with a desire to increase, improve and extend the success of the undertaking—it is common form to enter into agreements which are not reasonably necessary, or, indeed, necessary at all. They are merely expedient having regard to the desire of the undertaker to carry on his business successfully in the future. If you stand still with an undertaking you will often let the undertaking—I do not like to use unparliamentary language—"go to the devil." If all that is being done, in such a case as I have in mind, is something which a reasonable man with a desire for the future of the undertaking would do, that is simply something expedient.
It is quite wrong to go back after all these years, and come to the conclusion that the agreement in question was not necessary. The addition of the word "reasonable" does not help us. It must be "necessary" in order to be exempt from the possible great injury which will be inflicted if the Council are of opinion that it was not necessary for the purposes of the undertaking but was merely expedient. Unless those words are modified I contend that this is a most unfair and unjust section, and it should be altered in some way, if only by going back to the fair date—which cannot be earlier than the year 1948—or by some modified clause, so that you will hit the only people whom you ought to hit—namely, the undertakers who do something for the purposes of defeating the effect of this measure. That, I am sure, can be easily done with a slight alteration in the language of this clause, without inflicting grave injustice on people whose only sin has been to carry on business in an up-to-date and courageous way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to reinforce that argument. We are in a genuine difficulty here, and whatever the noble and learned Viscount the Lord

549
Chancellor said about dissipation of assets has nothing whatever to do with this matter. There we were dealing with how much people were to be allowed to pay out and what the gas companies could do, and he suggested that until the Bill came in they were free to do as they liked. No complaints can be made about that. I am sure that he wishes, as we all wish, to deal fairly with these people. We are in a genuine difficulty, and if we can get the best minds to bear on it, it should work out. It appeared a tolerably simple thing when an announcement was made in 1945 or 1946, or whenever it was, that something was going to happen "next year." It was not so simple when the thing passed on through the years. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree with me about this, whatever views he and I may hold on nationalization—and maybe he is a little nearer to me in that regard than are some of his colleagues. Whether an industry is nationalised in the future or not, what must happen to-day is that everybody in industry in this country—management and workers and everybody else—must go full steam ahead and produce. What does that mean? It means that we have to take risks. I do not care whether it is an industry nationalised or under private enterprise, risks have to be taken, whether we are making a contract at home or overseas. If we fail to do that, then that way stagnation lies—and where stagnation lies, damnation lies. I do not think there is any difference between us on that point. But real anxiety is being caused to these people.
I do not happen to be a director of any of these concerns which are threatened with nationalisation, but I am associated with some great undertakings in different parts of the world, and I know that the vital thing is to go ahead and take chances. But you cannot easily take chances if you are not sure whether or not something is coming down to hit you on the head. Nobody in business minds taking a fair chance, a chance on the future. The business man must bet on the future, take the risk and go forward. In business to-day the number of risks and chances one has to take are innumerable. I am not making a Party point now. I do not refer to all the tiresome controls, and things of that sort. There are almost
550
imponderable risks of changes, even of peace or war. But the hundred and one uncertainties are not the fault of this Government or of any Government but are the fault of the conditions under which we live.
In the light of these conditions, more than ever is it necessary that people should forge ahead and take a chance. Good keen people, the best people whom I hope you will get from your nationalised industries and whom we have in our private enterprise, will take those chances and risks, whether they are in the nationalised industries or not; whereas people who just sit back on their hunkers want to play for safety. They are dreadful. By this clause you are really asking everybody to play for safety, just when you want them to go out and take risks and chances. Noble Lords opposite say "We do not know what industries we are going to nationalise, but those industries must go forward in the national interest; they must go forward, taking risks as if there were no sword of Damocles over their head or even in the middle distance," That cannot be done with this kind of clause. I agree that if there has been mala fides, I am all for hitting the people concerned for all you are worth—somebody who, in some little or big concern, has made a contract which is going to benefit his son or his son-in-law for twenty years. I am all against "jobs for the boys," either on your side or on mine, and that sort of thing I am prepared to hit at. But that is not what you are hitting here. In fact, here you are hitting a contract on which a man has taken a chance. There is no nepotism or suggestion of nepotism.
Was it a reasonable contract to enter into? The noble Leader of the Horse says he is all in favour of bulk purchase. I am not. I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to go and examine all the transactions of the Ministry of Food and the other buying Departments, honestly entered into—nobody doubts that—with the public interest at heart—and nobody doubts that—but with most unfortunate results. Take one example—linseed. I am sure that the man who entered into that contract and other contracts like it was quite sincere when he thought he was doing good business. He certainly was not doing good business. Go and examine that contract. Would

551
anybody say two years later, in the light of what is known, that that contract was entered into with reasonable prudence, foresight and the rest of it? Of course he would not. Anyone sitting in judgment upon that man would probably say, "It is quite unbelievable, looking at the facts to-day, that the man exercised reasonable prudence or foresight at the time." I ask the Government to consider that sort of case.
Let them take this clause away. I am not making a Party point upon it. We are all equally interested to see if we cannot between us hammer out something better, because this provision is going to cast its shadow upon the future of other industries. It may bring about a palsying effect. It might even have a palsying effect upon Mr. Strachey. Let us see if we cannot hammer out something which will deal as drastically as you please with a man who has entered into some contract to favour a friend, or to do a bit of nepotism for his family, but will deal much more realistically with people who have just made an ordinary business deal and exercised their judgment, whether or not that has turned out right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Now that I have been acquitted of talking misleading nonsense on that occasion, I may be thankful that the particular attack made upon me was on a matter in which it was so easy to demonstrate that I was right, although there must be many occasions upon which I have talked it all unknowingly! I can now afford to disregard all that sort of thing and look at the clause. As I see it, the trouble is this: what I really want to get at is those agreements which would not have been made had it not been known or anticipated that there was going to be nationalisation. That is what I want to hit at. I cannot use the phrase "bad faith" for this reason—that a business like this, anticipating that it was going to be nationalised, might be much more expansive in its dealings than it would otherwise have been. The business might be like the Unjust Steward in the Bible. It might say to its servants "What are you getting now? Only a £1,000 a year! That does not seem enough in these hard times. We will make it a couple of thousand"; and so on. You might have all sorts of agreements like that, which you could not really say were
552
mala fide, although you would quite obviously examine the matter carefully because they would have been made in an expansive frame of mind which would probably not have existed had there not been this moral certainty of nationalisation hanging over the industry. That is what I want to get at, and I am not sure that I should get at it if I used any words like "mala fide."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I just say this? These cases are contracts of personal service, but what I am anxious about is not that sort of thing but genuine business risks, such as buying coal forward or buying something forward—an ordinary commercial transaction. I would go a long way with the noble and learned Viscount if he would restrict this to contracts of personal service, but it is the commercial dealings that I am anxious about.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree that it would be utterly fallacious to judge a commercial bargain in the light of after-events. You buy "futures" and you turn out to be entirely wrong. I suppose every business man—like Lord Chancellors—makes mistakes from time to time, and it would be quite fallacious to say that because the particular bargain turned out wrong, therefore it was an imprudent bargain to make. I think you must consider matters as they were at the time when you made the bargain. Here, if the Area Board thinks that the bargain was not reasonably necessary or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence, they make this claim. And if the claim is made on the company they have a right to arbitration, and the Tribunal can act against them only if it is satisfied that the agreement or bargain was not reasonably necessary or was made with unreasonable lack of prudence. It is only in that event that the Tribunal are to decide against the agreement. I think that is not an unreasonable proposition. The Arbitration Tribunal must not be guilty of the obvious fallacy of judging the agreement in the light of after-events. The Tribunal must put themselves in the armchairs of the directors at the time of the contract.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I interrupt? The danger, as I see it, is not that the Arbitration Tribunal will refuse to look at the facts as they were at the

553
date of the agreement; it is that the Arbitration Tribunal are bound to come to the conclusion that the transaction was not reasonably necessary or was entered into with less than ordinary prudence. That means just what I have endeavoured to say, and what my noble friend Lord Swinton has said with much more force. It is something quite different. On some occasion, in the interests of their company, and without thinking in the least of the Bill that might or might not turn into an Act, they had done something which was admittedly not necessary, but which was expedient in order that the business should improve. Perhaps it was thought that a chance should be taken with possibility of a very great reward. That is the difficulty which I have with this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I differ from the noble and learned Viscount here. I make a distinction between the terms "reasonable" and "reasonably necessary." I think that "reasonably necessary" means that, by and large, it was a sensible sort of agreement to make at the material time—that is, at the time when the agreement was made. And that is what I want to provide. I believe that these words are satisfactory. I cannot overlook the fact that these words are, substantially, the words of the Electricity Act and the Transport Act, though, in this case I think they are slightly more acceptable to your Lordships, for some slight concession has been made. It is plain from the use of the words "if satisfied" that the onus is upon the Tribunal only to decide whether they are satisfied that the agreement was not reasonably necessary. That being so, I feel that we must adhere to this clause. Of course, if anyone makes a suggestion to me between now and the Report stage of some modification which will safeguard the position, I will gladly consider it. Quite frankly, I do not want to hit at the sort of agreement that would have been made whether there was nationalisation in the offing or not. What I want to deal with is the sort of agreements which were made comparatively lightheartedly because nationalisation was in the offing. I am not prepared to accept any suggestion of mala fides. I think that too restricted, too narrow. I want to ask:
554
"Was this a sensible agreement for prudent businessmen to make at the time they made it?"
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Put that in the clause and we shall be happy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suggest that that is in the clause. My case is that it is there. If the noble and learned Viscount can give me any better form of words I shall be glad to consider it. So far as I know—and I hope that I am not talking misleading nonsense—in the Transport Act or in the Electricity Act no one has succeeded in finding a better form of words. Until one is suggested I must adhere to this
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is an extremely important matter. I admit that I have difficulty over suggesting a better form of words. We discussed this together, both on the floor of the House and with all our advisers. It is very difficult to find a form of words which covers something which I agree ought to be covered and, at the same time, protects transactions which ought to be protected. But I have this suggestion to make to the Lord Chancellor. I would like to divide the classes of cases, because, as you get further and further back, to somewhere like November 19, 1945, in dealing with commercial transactions (and I am not worrying about anything else) it becomes more and more difficult for any arbitrator to put himself into the position which existed then. I admit that a good arbitrator might do that. But what I am much more worried about is the effect on people conducting the business.
The Lord Chancellor knows so well the phrase we often use in business: "I am chary of buying a lawsuit." I have been held up in business I wanted to undertake. I have asked my adviser: "What is the chance?" and I have received the reply: "Well, you may have a lawsuit against you." You know it is the right thing to do, but you are not going to buy trouble, and so you stop doing it. That is not right. It is the deterrent effect on all the other people who are doing their ordinary business—the fear that they would be buying trouble. As I say, I would take a chance of buying trouble in the future, but what worries me is the buying trouble back to some uncertain date. Would the Lord Chancellor

555
consider this? I do not expect an answer to-day. Let him take his 1945 date for contracts of personal service, and that sort of thing; but let him take a much more recent date for commercial contracts which are to be readjusted because there was not a reasonable amount of prudence. Upon that I do not think he can lose anything. On the contrary, I think he would gain a great deal by giving confidence to everybody in the business world.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to consider anything, so long as I am not misleading by indicating that I am going to accept it. I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion. If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, will give me a better form of words, I am quite prepared to consider those. I am prepared to consider anything, so long as I preserve this principle—that it would be utterly wrong that after this nationalisation was announced people should enter into agreements by which they avoid its effect. The other difficulty is that this is the form of words in two existing Acts of Parliament. But I will gladly consider this matter. While I make no promise that I will do anything, I invite suggestions from your Lordships, and I will examine them with those who advise me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I would like to support the last suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, of trying to divide it into two categories. I say this simply from having experience of the industries which have been or are about to be nationalised. I say it from the point of view of the effect which it has on those who are responsible for policy decisions as to the development of the industries. So far, I think, it is true that there has been no difficulty about the electricity or transport industries, which have already been nationalised. But it is having a serious effect. I agree that anything like a contract for employment, improperly given, or an arrangement of that sort, ought to be most severely discouraged, and ought to be made inoperative. The date question is a most difficult one. For example, I would rather raise the question: How does that apply
556
to the steel industry? We have had a lot of things said as to whether it is or is not to be nationalised; and how and when it is to be nationalised. We understood that it was the Government policy, and it still may be. But is there any clear date at which the steel industry can understand that a decision to nationalise was taken? Will there be there a date of this kind going back to 1945? Is that not bound to have the effect of discouraging people from making their forward plans, and ordering plant? Are not they bound to consider: "If we embark on this new modernisation of the plant, and commit ourselves to large expenditure, what will be the effect on our shareholders? Should we undertake this, that and the other, or are we likely to be criticised? Will there be a disclaimer of contract in this case? There is the other difficulty, with regard to ordinary normal things which arise from time to time—subscriptions to trade societies and annual subscriptions to bodies like charities and hospitals, as there used to be until recently. Should we be strictly within the terms of the Bill in agreeing to this or should we say that it will bring us into the disclaimer clause?"
Those things must operate, and I am certain have operated, to give people a feeling of insecurity and doubt as to what they should do. If this date question could be solved in the way proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, it would be a great help, because whatever may be arranged as to the vesting date, in the case of the gas industry it is not likely to be less than a number of months, and a good deal requires to be done in that period. Anything which can be arranged to give more confidence will surely help in its development. Although I cannot suggest any form of words, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will try to follow the suggestion as to the two categories which have been proposed by the noble Viscount.
LORD LLOYD: In the circumstances, I should like to say two things. First of all, the noble and learned Viscount suggested in his later speeches that I accused him of talking misleading nonsense. I would like to say again that nothing was further from my intentions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if I suggested that. I meant to make

557
it quite plain that the noble Lord had made no sort of accusation, but that certain persons in another place had quite wrongly made that suggestion.
LORD LLOYD: I wanted the noble and learned Viscount to understand that. The reason I raised that point was purely because it seemed there was a difference between the two clauses. In view of the assurance he has given to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Compensation to holders of securities.
25.—(1) Every holder of securities of any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies, not being an undertaker to whom section eighteen of this Act applies, shall be entitled to be compensated by the issue to him by the Gas Council, in accordance with the provisions of. the Second Schedule to this Act, of British Gas Stock of such amount as in the opinion of the Treasury is at the vesting date of a value equal to the value of the said securities held by him, regard being had (in estimating the value of the stock so issued) to the market value of government securities at or about the vesting date:
Provided that—
(a) if the whole of the beneficial interest in any such securities was, immediately before the vesting date, vested in any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies, other than an ancillary gas undertaker or an undertaker who is not a body corporate, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those securities and the securities shall be extinguished on the vesting date; and
9.53 p.m.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved, in subsection (1), to delete "in the opinion of the Treasury" The noble Lord said: The apparently somewhat innocent Amendment which stands in my name is moved for a particular purpose, first, to draw attention to the operation of similar sections in the Transport Act and the Electricity Act, and, secondly, with a view to avoiding the repetition of those occurrences under the Gas Bill. The first part of the clause in question deals with the compensation to holders of securities by the issue of Gas Stock, similar to the
558
issue of Transport Stock and Electricity Stock under the other two Acts.
My Amendment, and what I have to say, have no bearing on the method by which that compensation is assessed, in regard to which other Amendments will come before your Lordships' House in due course. What have to say about the first part of the clause is without prejudice to what I may have to say about the method of compensation, referred to later. The particular part of the clause to which I am referring is subsection. (1), the relevant parts of which read at present as follows:
"Every holder of securities of any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies shall be entitled to be compensated by the issue to him by the Gas Council…of British Gas Stock of such amount as in the opinion of the Treasury is at the vesting date of a value equal to the value of the said securities held by him regard being had"—
and these are the particularly important words—
"to the market value of government securities at or about the vesting date."
My reason for moving this Amendment, which seeks to omit the words, "in the opinion of the Treasury," is that experience has shown, in the case of the Transport Stock and Electricity Stock which was issued in compensation, that the opinion of the Treasury in these matters was not worth having. In the past, we have had experience of the opinion of the Treasury and were given to understand that that opinion was not only of great value but was not allowed to be traversed, either by circumstances or by other people's opinions. That regard and that good opinion have not been borne out by circumstances within the last two years. One of two things has therefore taken place. Either the opinion of the Treasury which led to the issue of Transport Stock and British Electricity Stock was founded on misleading and erroneous circumstances; or the opinion of the Treasury has been guided in a direction which has led to the results to which I have referred.
In both the cases to which I have referred—the issue of Transport Stock and Electricity Stock—the value of compensation stock given to holders has not been such, having regard to the market value of British Government securities at or

559
about the vesting date, as would have justified anybody in taking up the stock. The evidence of that can be found in the value of British Government stocks on both of the two dates which are relevant to this argument. On the vesting date of the transport industry (January 1 this year) and of the electricity industry, it appeared likely that Transport and Electricity Stocks would stand at a certain value. In point of fact, the values of those stocks on those two dates was par for a 3 per cent. stock of a certain maturity. To be more precise, on the vesting date of the transport industry, 3 per cent. Savings Bonds, 1965–1975—a representative British Government stock—stood at about 100½, having been Too a short time before. The stock known as 3 per cent. Savings Bonds 1955–1965 was at the same relevant date a little under 102. British Transport Stock, which was a 3 per cent. stock dated 1978–88 and was issued in compensation to the stockholders under a clause analogous to the one I have quoted, opened on the date of issue at 98, which was 2½ points below the other stock, for the simple reason that the stock selected to compensate the holders was somewhat longer in date and therefore might be expected to command a lower price. I will come back to those two stocks in a minute. On the vesting date of the electricity industry, the two stocks to which I have already referred stood at par. Electricity Stock, when issued, opened at 99 and thereafter, in common with other Government stocks, fell steadily, but the Electricity Stock fell lower than the others.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could the noble Lord tell me what it is today?
LORD RENNELL: I am coming to the price of both of them in a minute. In other words, the Transport and Electricity Stocks were issued at a price which, in the opinion at the time of everyone except the Treasury, was higher than the price which they could (and did) command. I am coming to the question of price and the value of compensation in a minute. Nobody held the opinion that the two stocks which were respectively issued to compensate holders of transport and electricity securities could possibly command a higher price if they were longer in date than the other two
560
Government stocks to which I have referred and which were the standard stocks by which a stock like that was likely to be judged. No one thought so, and in fact the stocks did not command a higher price.
Now it may be argued—and I gather that this was the reason for the inquiry made by the noble and learned Viscount—that anyone to whom those stocks had been issued and who had retained them, might have obtained the prices which the Government would have wished them to obtain. It is, however, an unfortunate circumstance, from the point of view of the noble and learned Viscount opposite, that, whereas since those dates other British Government stocks have risen in value above the level to which I referred, the British Transport stock (to take that stock first) has steadily fallen. The two stocks to which I first referred as being what one might call the standard measurement stocks, stand to-day at either about the same level or about a point higher than they did. British Transport stock stands, not even at the level at which it was issued, but very considerably below it. In other words, the value of the compensation stock issued to holders of transport securities was not only wrong in the light of after-events and in the light of everybody's opinion at the time by a matter of 2 per cent., but has since shown a decline in the wrong direction, so much so that the price of compensation stock is to-day some 4 per cent. below the level which I presume the Treasury wished holders of transport securities to receive. I am coming to that point about what they wished them to have.
To complete the answer to the noble and learned Viscount's inquiry, I would say that the price of British Electricity Stock has at long last risen to the level at which it should have stood at the time it was issued, but the other comparable stocks are higher. If, therefore, the Treasury had wished to give a stock which in its opinion was worth what it was alleged to be worth at the time that it was issued, in the case of electricity it would have given a stock which to-day would have been worth slightly more than the price at which it stood when the compensation was made. A fortiori, if the Treasury's opinion had been worth having, the price of Transport Stock would now stand, at lowest, at the level at which

561
it came out (which is less than the level at which it should stand) but it is now considerably lower than the price at which it came out. I have shown, I hope to your Lordships' satisfaction, that the value of the compensation made at that time in respect of both those stocks was not what was expected or indeed what the Government intended. I will elaborate that point in a moment. Therefore in the case of one very large block of compensation, not only has the compensated party not received the price to which he was entitled, but he has been involved in very considerable loss.
I am not on this Amendment dealing with the question of income value; I am dealing solely with capital value. The question of maintainable income, or the receipt of an income similar to what the holder had before the compensation stocks were issued, is not germane to this particular part of the argument, but we will come to that when considering a series of Amendments which are being proposed by other noble Lords. All I am saying is that I find it a matter of grave criticism that the Government should say: "We will give you, for something which you have, a price which is supposed to represent a certain price," and then give you something which is worth considerably less. When they state that, in the opinion of the Treasury, the value given is the value they claim to be giving, I say that the opinion of the Treasury is not one which I would be prepared to follow or to recommend to your Lordships in the case of compensation under the Gas Bill.
How that Treasury opinion was arrived at is no concern of mine, but it probably may concern your Lordships very considerably in another context—namely, consideration of the conduct of British Government finances over the last two years. But for what has happened with British Government finances I do not believe that these two types of stock would have been selected for compensation for transport shareholders or electricity shareholders. I therefore arrive, very unwillingly at the conclusion that the opinion of the Treasury about the values of certain things was an opinion which was vitiated—I say "vitiated" deliberately—by the political complexion which the Treasury were directed to assume in issuing that compensation stock. I prefer to take that view rather than the
562
view that the Treasury in these matters is incompetent and their opinion about the value of compensation stock is so much at variance with the opinion of everyone else in this country about the value of compensation stock. I do not believe that our Civil Service is se incompetent as that.
Having regard to those arguments, I have moved to omit the words "in the opinion of the Treasury" in the case of compensation to Gas Stock holders, so that the clause shall read that holders of gas securities covered by that part of the clause to which I refer shall receive equal value in compensation—not compensation which, in the opinion of the Treasury, is equal value. I am prepared to admit that in framing a clause of this sort an opinion is required, and if any of your Lordships would care to move an Amendment to my Amendment to insert in the place of the words "in the opinion of the Treasury" something to ensure that the value of the compensation shall be fixed in some other body's opinion or some other person's opinion or in the opinion of some tribunal, I shall be happy to accept it. Having regard to what has happened, I submit that the opinion of the Treasury in this connection is not worth having. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 39, leave out from ("as") to ("is") in line 40.—(Lord Rennell.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment which has been so eloquently moved by my noble friend, Lord Rennell. Whatever may be the reply of His Majesty's Government, I think that it is an indisputable fact that both Electricity and Transport Stock fell below par almost from the moment of issue. Why did that fall occur? No doubt one reason was that people who received Electricity or Transport Stock in exchange for their securities were forced to sell them and reinvest elsewhere in order to make up their loss of income. Exactly the same thing, I suppose, will occur with Gas Stock. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not adroit this fact, but maintains the view that the holders of national stock have obtained additional security which is sufficient to compensate them for loss of income, and ignores the fall in national stock that it is bound to

563
occur. In subsection (1) of this clause it is laid down that holders of securities in gas undertakings are to be compensated by the issue of Gas Stock of such amount as is, at the vesting date, equal in value to that of securities which he at present holds, regard being had to the market value of Government securities at or about the vesting date.
LORD RENNELL: One of my points was not concerned with the question of the selling of the stocks at all. It was that compensation was to be received in a type of stock which was found to be of lesser value than standard stocks with which it was compared.
LORD TEYNHAM: I would like to ask who is to be the judge in this equality of value of securities? As laid down in the Bill, none other than the Treasury themselves are to be responsible for the issue of the stock. In fact they are to be judges in their own cause, and I think that, in view of what has transpired in the case of Transport and Electricity Stock, it would seem that the judgment of the Treasury is not a very good one. I would suggest that it would be far better to have an independent body to fix the equality in value. The Chairman of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or some other suitable person might be appointed. In another place, I think the Governor of the Bank of England was suggested. But whoever it may be, he should certainly be independent of the Treasury, and I hope His Majesty's Government will have some better plan to offer than that now set out in this clause of the Bill.
Then we have the curious market operations of the Treasury at about the time when national stock is to be issued. I would suggest that the methods used by the Treasury just before the issue of Transport and Electricity Stocks were very strange. I think that they might be described as almost a "rigging of the market." It certainly appears that deliberate action was taken by the Treasury to boost the gilt-edged market at about the time of the vesting dates. What would be said of private enterprise if a similar operation in the markets had been carried out by a board of directors preparatory to making an issue of stock by their company? The Minister
564
indicated in another place that open market operations were essential to the present technique of management. We may be living in an era of managed currency and cheap money policy, but it is going a little too far when the market is manipulated by the Treasury when they are faced with the issue of a national stock, in order to obtain the best terms for themselves. I hope His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they do not intend to carry out these operations in the future, and especially at the time when Gas Stock is about to be issued. I think there is little doubt that such Treasury operations have had the effect of producing losses to a very large number of people in this country, many of whom are living on small incomes, who will, in any case, have to face a loss under this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not going to enter into a controversy with these two noble Lords on these matters, about which they obviously understand a great deal and about which, I admit quite frankly, I understand absolutely nothing. I will not endeavour to deal with the matter at all. But I would say this. It seems to us absolutely essential that there should be someone to determine the value of compensation stock on the vesting date. So far I think we are all agreed. If you did not have that, you would have the matter subject to litigation. I suppose every individual would be entitled to litigate, and to litigate up to your Lordships' House, and the matter would be quite impossible. It seems to us that that "somebody" should be the Treasury. I do not know how it came about that the Treasury made a mistake—if they did make a mistake—but I am glad to find that even the Treasury can make a mistake.
LORD RENNELL: It was two in this case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems that even the Treasury can make two mistakes. Let us hope they will not make it three. Anybody can make a mistake. Even the Chairman of the Stock Exchange might make a mistake. The President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants might make a mistake. I have made mistakes. It is even possible that the noble Lord has made a mistake—though the latter is perhaps more unlikely. There it is. Somebody has got to fix

565
this value, and, in fact, the Treasury in fixing it do consult the Bank of England. It is not right to say that this is the responsibility of some civil servant. It is not. This is the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. No doubt he acts in the light of the advice he gets from his civil servants, from the Bank of England and from other people he consults; nevertheless it is his responsibility, and it seems to us absolutely right that we should adhere to this clause. This clause has been adopted throughout in the various nationalisation Acts—in the Cable and Wireless Act, the Transport Act and the Electricity Act—and here it is again. All I can say is that it seems to us that the Treasury are still, thank goodness! honest people and that they are less likely to make mistakes than anybody else. In the circumstances, I regret to tell your Lordships that I have nothing to offer here, and if your Lordships want to take these words out, your remedy is to take them out by a Division. I maintain that these words are essential to the structure of this Bill, as they have been to the structure of all the other nationalisation Bills.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must say that that is one of the most singular answers I have ever heard. There seems to be a competition in seeing who can make most mistakes—a sort of "Comedy of Errors." That may be very entertaining as a matter of debate, but it is not very entertaining to the people who receive what is intended to be just and fair compensation. The compensation, as the previous Acts have said, is to be the fair and just equivalent. Surely the Lord Chancellor will at any rate admit this: that having laid down in a Bill that people are to receive what is the fair and just equivalent, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that that is what they shall receive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged for that answer. May I ask assent to the next proposition? In testing whether the method which has been pursued in order to reach a fair and just equivalent has in fact given that result—which is not a matter of opinion ex post facto but a matter of fact—if it
566
is found that the stock which has been issued does not give that fair equivalent but is in fact lower by several points, or even a point (a point is very substantial in this matter) than the equivalent stocks, then it is admitted that a mistake has been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is not admitted that a mistake has been made? Then I really do not understand what is the meaning of the word "mistake" or "miscalculation."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I help on this matter? This is to be the opinion of the Treasury. Of course, that means the best opinion of the Treasury, and the opinion of the Treasury come to on fair and legitimate grounds. The Treasury are not prophets, but come to an honest conclusion, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. Directly after they make the bargain, there might be an outbreak of war to falsify the thing. All you can ask is that the Treasury should honestly apply their mind to the right considerations. I do not admit for one moment that any mistake has been made.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not in the least admit that that is all we can ask for. Really, I have never heard such an extraordinary proposition. What the British citizen is entitled to ask for is justice. Nobody is accusing the Treasury of being corrupt, but what h as been proved beyond peradventure is that the Treasury have been wrong. The Lord Chancellor says he has been wrong. He says that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, may be wrong. We are often wrong, but we really must not boast about being wrong. When we have been wrong I thought that what we did was to try next time to right that wrong. The Lords Chancellor says: "Not at all. Do not let us try to be right. All you have to say is that the Treasury were giving an honest opinion."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never said we must not try to be right—that is a complete misrepresentation of my views. If next time the Treasury were to fix the value too high and say that, in the light of after events, these people had got too much, I should not ask them to pay it back. So long as the Treasury honestly fix the price, that is all they have to do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is not in the least the issue. I am not asking, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, is not asking, and nobody is asking that we should alter Acts of Parliament which have been passed. We thought they were unfortunate at the time, and we said so, but they were passed and we must take our chance on them. What we do say is that surely we may learn from experience; and if, in fact, in the issue of Transport Stock and Electricity Stock the public has not received what they were entitled to receive under the terms of the Act of Parliament because the Treasury made a miscalculation, then, I say, surely let us try and safeguard the position in this present nationalisation bill. It seems to me that that is a self-evident proposition.
Really, for the Lord Chancellor to assume a sort of Papal infallibility for the Treasury seems to me to be a strange assumption of prerogative. Surely we want to do what is fair and just and to give in fact what is, in the best opinion, the equivalent. I agree that somebody has to be the judge. You cannot have these matters litigated in the courts. I quite agree also—at least I am prepared to assent to the proposition though I do not think it is a self-evident proposition, because after all a great deal is going to arbitration—that it may be that the Treasury are the right body to fix this. I should not have said, however, that there was anything in the least derogatory in setting up a tribunal. One very often goes to a tribunal. I remember the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor boasting—and rightly: he was entitled to boast because he carried this legislation through—that he was going to propose legislation under which the Government and the subject were going to be on an absolutely equal footing, and that one would have as much right against a Government Department as one citizen has against another. I am not even asking that we should re-open the subject of the Treasury's mistakes—though if we go back to a clause which we were discussing only a few moments ago, on the right to re-open contracts where there has been an "unreasonable lack of prudence," I should have thought that what was sauce——
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is excessive prudence in this case.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Excessive prudence on the part of the Treasury. I do not know whether it has worked out to the benefit of the Treasury—I suppose it has—but it has worked out to the loss of the consumer. I should have thought that, taking the precedent of the last clause, we might have had something to say about that. But I am not trying to go back upon the past; I am praying in aid the past only in order to learn for the future. I should have thought that the reasonable thing to do—and it would not lead to any loss of face or pride—would be for the Treasury to say, "If the responsibility is ours we will take the best advice we can from the people who really know what the effect on the Stock Market is likely to be—the Bank, the Committee of the Stock Exchange or whomsoever it may be." I think that that would be the right and reasonable thing to do; and, having taken that advice, let the Treasury make their decision. I do not think it would be satisfactory merely to delete these words. I submit that to my noble friend, Lord Rennell, and that he should propose that the Treasury in coming to a conclusion should take advice. No one is better qualified to draft an Amendment as to who are the right people to consult than is the noble Lord, and if he were to put down such an Amendment I would certainly support it.
10.30 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: With your Lordships' leave, I should like to correct two points that have arisen. I have assumed that when the Government said in effect, "We will give you something of a certain value for something which you have," that the "something" which the Government gives will have the value which it is represented it has. I have submitted evidence to show that that "something" which the Government have given did not have that value. My proposal in this regard is a very simple one. It is that when the holders of gas securities come to be compensated they shall be compensated with a stock which at the time of the compensation shall have the value that it is alleged to have. It would have been simple in the case of transport and electricity compensation to have given to the holders of those stocks something which at that moment had that value, and not a different thing which turned out

569
to have a different value. I go no further than that, and, at this stage, I ask the noble and learned Viscount only to give the House the assurance that, in the case of the holders of Gas Stock, they shall have something which at the time that it is given has, in fact, the value which it is supposed to have, and not a different value which, in the opinion of the Treasury, ought to be the same value—an opinion which nobody else shares. All I am asking now is that, if the clause is allowed to stand in somewhat the same form as that in which it is now drafted, the holders of gas securities shall have issued to them a stock which, at the time of compensation, shall be identical with a stock which has the value that the Government intend that the new stock shall have. If I can have that assurance, I shall withdraw the Amendment now and not amend it at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that the only assurance that I can give now is that the Treasury will apply their minds to the problem. They have to fix the price at some given moment of time. They will apply their minds to that problem and they will take all such advice—for instance, advice from the banks, and so on—as is open to them. They will try to fix a price which gives too per cent. of the value. That is what they will aim at and try to do. I cannot say more than that. No man can do more. One cannot absolutely guarantee that they will be right one way or the other. All I can say now is that they will do their best in applying their minds to all the relevant circumstances at the relevant date to fix the right price.
LORD RENNELL: May I take the noble and learned Viscount just a little further by an example, if your Lordships will allow me? In paying for something, you pay for a known commodity and not for an unknown commodity. If you buy a sheep, you expect to get a sheep; you do not expect to get a fat goat, which is larger than a sheep, in place of a sheep. I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to say that the compensation stock that is given shall be of a type which, at the time that it is given, is identical with other stocks in existence having that value, and that it shall not be another stock of a different type which is alleged, in the opinion of the Treasury,
570
to be of the same value. In other words, when I buy a sheep want a sheep and not a goat. Will the noble and learned Viscount go so far as to say that he will represent those views in the proper quarter, and will also accept from me the assurance that I am not concerned with what the value of the compensation is after the event? It might then be affected by reason of a large number of people selling, which would not be a fair criterion. The only point of my remarks is that the value at the time shall be what it is alleged to be. If the noble and learned Viscount will go down that road just a little further with me, and ensure, or seek to ensure, that when a sheep is sold a sheep is delivered instead of a goat, a horse or a donkey, I will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At twenty-five minutes to eleven to-night, I cannot give any undertaking in regard to these complicated financial measures, except this. I will gladly convey to the proper quarters the observations which the noble Lord has made, in order that at a later stage of the Bill, if it is thought proper, I may be authorised to accept it. More than that I cannot do at the moment.
LORD RENNELL: I entirely agree and, with your Lordships permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE: I was going to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would perhaps go a trifle further. These people are unwilling sellers of their stock to the Government. I freely admit that to ascertain with mathematical exactitude what is a stock that has exactly the same value presents certain difficulties. But would the noble and learned Viscount represent in the right quarters that the benefit of doubt should go to the holders of the stock, rather than to His Majesty's Treasury?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly represent any thing, but I cannot myself give any view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We do not want unduly to press the Lord Chancellor and I fully appreciate the difficulties involved. But would it be possible for him, before we reach the next stage, to inform the noble Lord, Lord Rennell,

571
or Lord Swinton, or somebody, of the reply which he receives from the Treasury? Because it may influence the course we take.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will, with the greatest pleasure. Indeed, I will gladly put any noble Lord in touch with the Treasury so that he may hear the reply with his own ears.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: May I just say——
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are getting out of Order now. This Amendment has been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, surely the procedure is that after a noble Lord has moved his Amendment, he then, if he so desires, asks leave to withdraw it; but if any noble Lord desires to speak, he is entitled to speak before that Amendment is withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question was put from the Chair and carried. I will gladly see the noble Lord about this. He knows perfectly well that if he will see me privately, I will gladly deal with the matter. But when an Amendment has been put and leave has been given from the Chair—it was put from the Chair: "Amendment by leave, withdrawn"——
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It was not carried.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It really was put, and the Chairman said: "Amendment, by leave, withdrawn."
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I submit to your Lordships, on a point of Order, that a practice has grown up whereby the Chairman does not put the Question that ought to be put—namely, "Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?" which is the practice both here and in the other place. The Chairman has sometimes assumed that it is withdrawn, and has never put the question that leave be given. In this case, leave would not have been given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it was put. I thought the Chairman said, "Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?" and, there being no opposition, it was withdrawn; but I am speaking only from memory.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am quite happy to accept what the noble and learned Viscount says, and to defer any observations I may have to make.
10.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in proviso (a) of subsection (1), after "than" to insert "a composite company." The noble Viscount said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton and myself. This Amendment, I trust, is both innocent and innocuous but I am sorry to say that it is not altogether simple. It deals with composite companies. Your Lordships do not require any dissertation from me as to the meaning of a composite company. It is a company which operates in gas and in other things. The issue here is simplified because the composite companies, in fact, now comprise only companies which manufacture gas and provide water. There are, I believe, no other sorts of company which can be called "composite" within the meaning of this Bill. I am afraid that I must weary your Lordships by calling attention to Clause 18, subsection (5), which plainly states that:
"No part of the cash and investments of a composite company shall vest in an Area Board.…"
It then goes on to state that the whole of the cash and investments of the company shall be apportioned. That is a perfectly simple proposition. It means that the investments are apportioned on the basis of the Board taking a part and the surviving moiety of the composite company taking the other part.
Now I must direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 25 (1) (a). I do not wish to detain your Lordships by going into this matter at length, but proviso (a) plainly states that
"if the whole of the beneficial interest in any such securities was, immediately before the vesting date, vested in an undertaker…other than an ancillary gas undertaker.…"
such securities shall be extinguished. The purpose of this Amendment is to include a composite company amongst the ancillary gas undertakers which, under this provision in Clause 25, are specifically excluded. Your Lordships will appreciate that if that is not done, all the gas investments held in a gas capacity in such a case would be extinguished, whereas under

573
the earlier clause they would be apportioned. This, to my mind, is a curious and unfortunate anomaly, and one which I can see no reason to continue. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to follow me in a somewhat involved and complex matter, and that I shall receive from him an assurance that what I conceive to be a palpable anomaly will be corrected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, after ("than") insert ("a composite company").—(Viscount Buckmaster).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, or seems to be, a rather complicated matter. No doubt it is clear to your Lordships, although it is difficult. The position is this. Subsection (1) of Clause 25 provides shortly that every holder of securities of an undertaker shall be compensated by the issue to him of British Gas Stock. That is the broad general principle. But if the holder is an undertaker of certain classes no compensation shall be payable because, of course, the assets of the holder also vest in the Area Board. This Amendment seeks to exclude from the undertakers to which the exception applies composite companies—that is to say, those companies supplying gas and water under statutory powers. Under Clause 18, the undertakings of composite companies are split and only the gas assets vest in the Area Board. Further, by Clause 18 (9), references to undertakers in the subsequent provisions of the Bill in relation to composite companies refer to them only in their capacity as gas undertakers. For this reason this Amendment seems to us to be unnecessary and inappropriate.
As your Lordships will see, if the composite company, as part of its water undertaking, holds securities of a gas undertaker, it will duly receive compensation therefore. But if it holds them as a part of its gas undertaking, the compensation would have vested in the Area Board and its issue would be completely pointless. If any of your Lordships should ask why ancillary gas undertakers and non-corporate undertakers (to which Clause 18 also applies) are excluded from the exception in Clause 25, the answer
574
is that by Clause 18 (6) none of the investments of such an undertaker vests in an Area Board, I started off by admitting that this is rather a complicated matter and, having made the few observations I have—I think all your Lordships will agree with this—I would humbly suggest that the observations that I have made should be read, marked, learned and inwardly digested by your Lordships. If, having done that, your Lordships want to return to this matter at a later stage of the Bill, I shall be glad to go into it again. But I think that when those remarks are fully understood your Lordships will see that there is an overwhelming case against this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I appreciate the noble and learned Viscount's reply, which almost makes me feel that this is one of those Amendments which, as I said before, I wish I had never moved. He has asked your Lordships to read, mark and inwardly digest his words. I would ask your Lordships to do the same to my concluding remarks, because, with the greatest respect to the observations that have fallen from the Lord Chancellor I still maintain that the gas investments held in a gas capacity will be extinguished. And the result of perpetuating this anomaly is that in such cases these companies will be forced to liquidate those investments to escape the extinction which otherwise threatens them. On the understanding that the noble and learned Viscount will consider the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Your Lordships would hardly wish to move the next very important and complicated but meritorious Amendment at this time of night.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After that last Amendment, I am prepared to go home to bed!
House resumed.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
Reported, with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven of the clock.