Sitting of 28 June 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WARWICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Building Repairs (Licences)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Works to what extent and in what manner the powers of local authorities to license building repairs will be varied, in view of the decision to raise to £100 the amount of building work which can be done without licence.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): At present officers of local authorities issue on my behalf licences for all work to private dwellings irrespective of the amount, and for other classes of work costing less than £100. After 1st July these officers will be concerned only with the licensing of work to private dwellings.
    Mr. Collins: If a person has been granted a licence by a local authority after 1st July, will he also retain the right to spend £100 within a year without licence?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir, I should think the fact that he has already spent money on the property would have to be taken into account in issuing a licence for a future period.

    Cement Supplies
    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Works why cement supplies on Merseyside
    1806
    are so scarce, that builders and builders' merchants are complaining that work is being held up.
    Mr. Key: Lancashire and Cheshire are receiving more cement this summer than at any time in the past year, and a fair proportion of the cement available in the country as a whole. I am aware that complaints of shortage are still being received from Merseyside, and I am looking into this matter.
    Mr. Keenan: Will my right hon. Friend note that the workmen are very much concerned because there is a large incidence of unemployment in Liverpool? Will he convey to the Government that the trades associations are definitely asserting that the cause of the shortage is the large amount we are exporting?
    Mr. Key: I think I made it quite plain in the House recently that the amount of cement being used in this country at present is from 20 to 25 per cent. more than it was last year.
    Mr. Baldwin: When the right hon. Gentleman is looking into the shortage in the district concerned, will he inquire into other districts, because in the West Midlands area we are very short of cement?
    Mr. Key: Yes, we inquire into each district. As I tried to explain to the House, there is an allocation scheme by which we try to secure a fair distribution between various districts of the country.
    Mr. Beswick: Will my right hon. Friend answer the second part of the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan)? Is it the case that builders in this country are short of cement because cement is being exported?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir, as I said, there is more cement—something like 20 to 25 per cent. more—being used in this country.
    Mr. Beswick: Is it not probable that the demand is more than 25 per cent. higher than it was last year?
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Works whether any priority is given to the supply of cement for the construction of factories in development areas.
    Mr. Key: The supply of cement for factory construction in development areas is given preference over supplies for most other uses.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend really look into the question of the distribution of cement, because there are many factories in development areas which are being held up at present? Will he also have an investigation made to see that cement goes to the most urgent jobs?
    Mr. Key: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of cases where that is happening, I will certainly look into them. Applications made to my regional officers by people in the areas concerned lead to the matter being attended to and to cement being sent where it is required.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much is being exported?
    Mr. Speaker: This Question merely asks if priority is given to the supply of cement for factories in development areas.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the shortage due to the fact that too much is being exported?
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Works how much cement has been delivered to Scotland during each of the first five months of 1948; and how much it is expected will be delivered in June.
    Mr. Key: As the answer is in tabular form I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is now sufficient going there to meet the growing needs of the hydro-electric scheme in addition to housing, because there are still complaints of shortages?
    Mr. Key: The demands for the hydroelectric scheme as well as for other purposes are, of course, growing. We are trying to increase deliveries to Scotland and I can say that from January to May there has been an increase of nearly 40 per cent. in the deliveries made.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Has the Minister now instituted a system whereby the receivers of this cement receive reasonable notice of loads arriving? In the past they have had no notice.
    Mr. Key: The delivery of cement is a matter for the cement manufacturers and the cement organisations. My only function is, by negotiation with them, to get them to arrange the delivery of cement. The delivery of cement is not my function.
    Following is the statement:

    APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES OF CEMENT DELIVERED IN SCOTLAND INCLUDING LOCAL MANUFACTURE.

    Month.

    Basis of Calculation.

    Quantity Delivered in Tons.

    January, 1948

    Calendar Month

    50,100

    February, 1948

    Calendar Month

    52,700

    March, 1948

    Calendar Month

    61,600

    April, 1948

    5 weeks

    65,900

    May, 1948

    4 weeks

    69,700

    Deliveries during the first three weeks of June have been at a slightly higher rate than the average for May.

    Temporary Houses (Transportation)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Works why temporary houses manufactured in Lancashire were recently being transported north by road to Scotland for erection, while similar houses manufactured in Scotland are being transported south by the same road for erection in England.
    Mr. Key: There has been no recent transport of temporary houses from Lancashire to Scotland. Aluminium permanent houses are being made at Dumbarton and Gloucester and it has been found more convenient to supply the north of England's requirements from Dumbarton.
    Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that the type of house which was being transported from Lancashire to Scotland last winter is exactly the same as the type of house which is now coming South down the same road? Is the Minister also aware that the returning lorries never have loads provided for them, and that there is great indignation at this waste of transport and petrol?
    Mr. Key: The reason for the houses being transported from Dumbarton to Lancashire at the present time is that production in Lancashire has ceased since last year.
    Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Will the Minister say what he means by the word "recent"? He said that there had been no recent movement of these houses from Lancashire to Scotland.
    Mr. Key: Since the cessation of temporary house production in Lancashire. The movement now relates to permanent aluminium bungalows which are being produced at present.
    Mr. Vane: Will the Minister try to arrange some form of return load so that this transport does not run empty day after day for long distances?

    Government Offices, Edinburgh
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Works how much additional temporary office accommodation for Government staffs has been completed in Edinburgh since 1945; and how much is at present under construction.
    Mr. Key: Since 1945, a net area of approximately 64,000 sq. ft. of office accommodation has been provided in the new building at Sighthill which is already partly occupied and will be finally completed in three weeks' time. No further accommodation is at present under construction but plans are in preparation for the pro vision of a further 200,000 sq. ft. of offices which, it is hoped, will be started next year.
    Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this additional accommodation which it is contemplated will commence next year will enable all the houses, private dwellings, hotels and public buildings in Edinburgh to be vacated?
    Mr. Key: That is the purpose of its construction.

  GREECE (BRITISH SERVICE MISSIONS)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain a copy of the third Quarterly Report on American assistance to Greece and Turkey and place it in the Library of this House in order that hon. Members may peruse the section of the Report which is devoted to the work of British Service missions and troops in Greece.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Yes, Sir, when it is received.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will see that a note is added showing whether the sum of 138 million dollars, which President Truman reports to Congress as being the cost of maintaining British troops in Greece, and which he says contribute greatly to the furtherance of American aims, is paid by Britain or America?
  Mr. Mayhew: I have no doubt that the Report is accurate. In fact it has been cleared with us, and I do not think that there is any need for an explanation of it.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: My information is that the Report does not extend—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member only asked for a copy of the Report. He cannot put information into it which may or may not be there.

  HUNGARY (NATIONALISATION LAW)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make public the British Note to Hungary protesting about the terms of compensation offered under the Hungarian Nationalisation Bill.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Hungarian Nationalisation Law exempts from nationalisation all concerns in which the foreign interest is greater than 50 per cent. Thus the question of compensation should only arise in the case of minority British holdings in Hungarian companies. No terms of compensation for these holdings have yet been announced and there has been no protest of the kind described in the Question. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that we are keeping a close watch on the effect, on all British interests, of the application of the law and that those interests will be defended.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Would the Foreign Secretary not having protested, now send a note of congratulation on the efficient and speedy way in which nationalisation has been carried out?

  SECURITY COUNCIL (PALESTINE TRUCE COMMISSION)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative at the Security Council did not support the Soviet proposal for each of the Security Council members to be invited to send five officers to the Palestine Truce Commission.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Soviet Delegate proposed that the Security Council should attach to the United Nations mediator a number of military observers to be appointed by the members of the Council other than Syria. Only two delegates voted in favour of this proposal, which was made at a time when the mediator had already formed a staff of military observers in co-operation with the three Governments represented on the Truce Commission. It was for this reason that the United Kingdom Delegate, together with eight of his colleagues, abstained from voting for the Soviet proposal.
  Mr. Piratin: The Under-Secretary has not really answered the Question why our representative abstained from voting. When the hon. Gentleman answers that in a further supplementary answer, will he at the same time also explain how it was that we refused to support this Motion, when Count Bernadotte had been asking for 30 other observers to be sent there?
  Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that I have given the reasons quite plainly. The principal reason is that satisfactory arrangements had already been made at the request of the United Nations mediator.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend state the nationality of the observers who are now working in Palestine under the supervision of the mediator.
  Mr. Mayhew: They are nationals of the Truce Commission Powers.

  AUSTRIA (ARRESTS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the British representative
  1812
  on the Allied Council for Austria in relation to the arrest by the Soviet authorities of an Austrian senior police official, Anton Marek.
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative on the Allied Control Commission in Vienna to bring before that Commission the arrest by the Russians of Chief Inspector Anton Marek of the Austrian Ministry of Home Security and ask for a report of the circumstances in which this arrest took place.
  Mr. Mayhew: Inspector Marek has been concerned with the recent series of disappearances of civilians in Austria. The Austrian authorities were not informed of his arrest and it was only in reply to an inquiry two days later by the Austrian Chancellor that the Soviet Deputy Commissioner stated that Mr. Marek had been arrested on the charge of organising espionage against the Soviet Occupation troops. At its meeting on 25th June, the Allied Council considered a communication from the Austrian Government drawing attention to the alarm caused in Austria by Mr. Marek's arrest.
  The British High Commissioner observed that one of the primary tasks of the Allied Commission for Austria was to assist the Austrian Government to recreate sound, democratic conditions of life based on respect for law and order, and that the Control Agreement provided that the Allied Commission should act through the appropriate authorities. He considered that whether or not the charges against Mr. Marek were well founded, the Austrian Government should have been requested to hold the investigation. He, therefore, proposed that the Allied Commission should pass a resolution deploring the exercise of irregular coercive measures by agents of the Occupying Powers against inhabitants of Austria, and particularly against Austrian officials, that except when necessary to prevent a breach of peace, an official should only be arrested by the Austrian authorities and held in Austrian custody, and that Mr. Marek should be released or delivered to Austrian custody pending trial. This statement was strongly supported by the United States and French High Commissioners. The Soviet Representative, however, declined

  1813
  to discuss the matter and said that further information about Mr. Marek's case would be forthcoming in due course.
  Mr. Warbey: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will make it clear to the Soviet authorities through the British representative in Vienna that all sections of opinion in this country, with insignificant exceptions, disapprove of the methods of arbitrary arrest and detention which appear to have been used in this case?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, I am glad to state that the High Commissioner undoubtedly spoke for the vast majority of British people on this subject.
  Professor Savory: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information in regard to the other cases of kidnapping? I believe that at least 14 other Austrian citizens have disappeared about whom no protest has been made. Can the Under-Secretary give us any information about those cases?
  Mr. Mayhew: No. I should require a separate Question to be put down on that matter.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what circumstances any of the occupation authorities in Austria have the right to arrest and detain members of the Austrian Civil Service.
  Mr. Mayhew: By the terms of the Control Agreement the High Commissioners of each Occupying Power may act at their own discretion for the protection and security of their Forces in Austria. By a decision of the Executive Committee, published on 19th March, the Austrian Government must be notified as soon as possible of the arrest of any Austrian citizens by an Occupying Power. I may add that the British High Commissioner and his Western colleagues have tried to obtain the Soviet High Commissioner's agreement to co-operate fully with the Austrian Government in these cases. A unanimous Resolution providing for such co-operation where Civil Servants were involved was, in fact, approved by the Allied Council in September, 1946. The Soviet authorities have not, however, carried out this agreement in the spirit intended.
  Mr. Warbey: While recognising the need to make provision for the security of occupation forces in Austria, will my hon. Friend continue to make clear the importance of preserving civil servants from the fear of intimidation, which may prevent them from carrying out work in a democratic way?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I cordially agree with the hon. Member.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman note the beneficial effect on the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) of the speech made there last Saturday?

  SOUTH SCHLESWIG
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent British military government is responsible in South Schleswig for issuing permits for the existence of particular political organisations; what representations Danes and Germans respectively have made in regard to the future of this area; and why our authorities have prohibited the singing of certain cherished Danish songs.
  Mr. Mayhew: Under the terms of Military Government Ordinance No. 12, any new political party wishing to form anywhere in the British zone must apply for a permit to Military Government. There have been, since the war, frequent diplomatic exchanges between His Majesty's Government and the Danish Government, and His Majesty's Government have received a number of petitions from Germans in South Schleswig.
  As part of their annual festival the South Schleswig Association proposed printing a brochure containing a number of Danish and South Schleswig songs. When this proposal was submitted in the normal manner three of the songs were deleted as being nationalistic and calculated to cause trouble. On representation by the Association that the songs in question had been sung in South Schleswig for centuries the ban was lifted immediately.
  Mr. Sorensen: Whilst expressing appreciation for the last part of the reply, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether, in view of the tension which unfortunately exists between the Danish and German

  1815
  democratic organisations, everything is being done to promote greater appreciation and understanding between these two bodies.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, we are doing what we can. It is a long story and I should need a Question to be put down for a full answer.
  Professor Savory: Does not the Under-Secretary appreciate the anxiety of these Danish people of South Schleswig because of the danger of being swamped by the immense influx of Germans coming in from other zones?
  Mr. Mayhew: It is a very complicated question and I would rather have notice of it.

  SOUTH EAST ASIA (ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION)
  Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Sectary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider initiating discussions with the independent states of the British and Dutch Dominions in South East Asia and with the U.S.A. for the purpose of promoting economic co-operation and development in these areas.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that adequate machinery already exists for this purpose. The Commissioner General for the United Kingdom in South East Asia has responsibilities for co-ordinating, in consultation with the various British Commonwealth and foreign territories concerned, the supply of basic foodstuffs in the area; and the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East deals with questions affecting the general economic rehabilitation of the area.

  MAP OF EUROPE (MEMBERS' LIBRARY)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange for a map of Europe with the zones marked in colours to be placed in the Library.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.
  Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I
  1816
  express the hope that hon. Members of all parties will study this map?
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: May I ask whether in this map the British or the Soviet zones will be coloured red?

  GERMANY

    Incidents, Berlin
    Mr. Skeflington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the incidents in Berlin in which German Social Democrats and others were mobbed and beaten up at the City Hall.
    Mr. Mayhew: It appears that this incident began when a crowd, a few hundred strong and led by Communist organisers, surrounded the City Hall, at which a meeting of the City Assembly was due to take place. Some of these persons managed to enter the building, but the crowd finally withdrew when the Chairman of the City Assembly agreed not to called in the police. After the meeting, the crowd, urged on by some Communist councillors, attacked councillors leaving the building, injuring at least three of them, two of whom were members of the Social Democratic Party. The attitude of the police was passive throughout, and as a result of their unwillingness to afford protection, many councillors were unable to leave the City Hall. Assistance was finally obtained from a Social Democrat police officer and five policemen. This police officer was dismissed the following day.

    Currency System, Berlin
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement about the introduction of a currency system for the four sectors of Berlin.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to the statement made on 25th June.
    Mr. Philips Price: Has a reply been received about the proposal to control the currency from the four zones in Berlin?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means, but I would rather not add to the statement at the present time.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of what the Minister said over the week-end,

    1817
    to the effect that the Soviet mark would be acceptable for the whole of Berlin if it was under quadripartite agreement, can the hon. Gentleman say whether that position has been made clear to the Soviet Government?
    Mr. Mayhew: I think that position has been made clear but there is to be a Debate on Wednesday.
    Mr. Bramall: Could my hon. Friend confirm what was said by the Foreign Secretary in his statement on Friday that the currency introduced in the Western sector is apparently distinguished from the currency of the Western zone, that is to say it is a third currency, neither Russian nor Western zone currency, but some third currency?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have no reason to doubt that what my right hon. Friend said is the case.

    English Newspapers (Delivery)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain why the United States Government have forbidden the sending of English newspapers by post to addresses in the American sector of Berlin, and endeavour to have the embargo removed.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made of the United States Authorities in Germany, and I will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Under-Secretary say whether this prohibition extends to newspapers published in America; and secondly, is there any connection between this prohibition and the fact that the Berlin General Post Office, through which the newspapers would pass, is in the Russian sector?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am having inquiries made on those points, and perhaps I may be permitted to communicate with the hon. Member.

    International Decisions (U.S.S.R. Government)
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his action in communicating to the Government of the U.S.S.R. the decisions of the Six-Power Conference on
    1818
    Germany has been reciprocated by that Government in communicating to His Majesty's Government the decisions of the recent Warsaw Conference of Foreign Ministers.
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chamberlain: If this has been done—I gather it has been done from our side, if not from the other side—would it not be as well to follow this up by a suggestion of a general re-examination of these tangled problems from the Potsdam point of view?
    Mr. Mayhew: That raises a very wide problem. I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement that will be made on Wednesday.

  ALLIED COUNCIL, JAPAN
  Mr. Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that the only occasion on which business was transacted by the Allied Council for Japan from its fifty-fourth to its sixtieth meeting inclusive was at the fifty-eighth meeting of 26th May, 1948, when a dispute arose as to its powers, he will initiate a review of its activities in relation to its terms of reference and also in relation to the functions of the Far Eastern Commission and the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The Allied Council is an international body and any review of its functions would have to be undertaken jointly by the Governments concerned. I can see no advantage in attempting to arrange for joint discussions for such a purpose at this stage.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Is it not really fantastic that there should be a series of meetings at a time when most important decisions are being made about Japan and that there should be nothing whatever on the agenda, except on one occasion when the American chairman rated his colleagues for interfering in the realm of the Supreme Commander, and that was all that happened?
  Mr. Mayhew: It it not so much a question of our being satisfied with the proceedings of the Allied Council as whether, in all the circumstances, we should get anything better if we tried to change it.
  Mr. Warbey: Is it really the case that during the course of seven meetings, while all these things are happening about Japan, the Government have really nothing whatever to put on the agenda?
  Mr. Mayhew: It is a fact, as stated in the Question, that for a series of meetings the business was purely formal.
  Mr. John Paton: Is it not the case that the sooner the Allied Council farce is wound up the better it will be for all concerned, since it is now, and always has been, nothing more than a mere debating society?
  Mr. Chamberlain: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Tinned Turkey
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Food what is the present controlled price per pound of tinned turkey; and how many points are required to purchase it.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The maximum retail price is 7s. and 20 points are required per pound.
    Mr. Renton: Is this offer of tinned turkey, at such high price in both points and money, the result of the Minister's bulk buying of turkeys experiment last year, and is he aware that the average housewife would prefer him to confine his attention to food items which are less costly and more necessary?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it is not a result of that.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask whether this price carries a subsidy from the Ministry of Food, and if that were withdrawn to what figure the price would be increased?
    Mr. Strachey: I would need notice of that question.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these are the turkeys which he bought for Christmas 1946?
    Mr. Strachey: I have just been asked that question, if the hon. Member had listened, and the answer was "No."
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Minister from where these turkeys came?
    Mr. Strachey: I would need notice of that question.

    Olive Oil
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to make a reduction in the price of olive oil, the recent price of which is 51s. per gallon, as compared with the prewar price of 7s. per gallon, with special reference to a substantial supply of Greek olive oil purchased by his Department at £275 per ton, which has been sold to the olive oil merchants at the equivalent of £620 per ton.
    Mr. Strachey: The Greek olive oil referred to by the hon. Member is not yet on the market and when it is released the price will be substantially below the prices charged hitherto.
    Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, or his Department, does not intend to exploit the public and make them pay excessively high prices for the olive oil? Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Food is making very high profits from the purchase and re-sale of this olive oil?
    Mr. Strachey: The answer to the first part of the question is, "No, we do not." The answer to the second part is that this is imported by private traders.
    Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. The Minister gave a completely inaccurate answer—[Interruption.] May I raise this matter on the Adjournment? [Interruption.] May I have a little silence? May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If a Minister makes an inaccurate reply hon. Members must, for their own protection, and for the protection of their constituents, draw attention to it. That is the only protection which hon. Members possess. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment in view of the utterly misleading and inaccurate reply.

    Bread Rationing
    Mr. J. S. C. Reidasked the Minister of Food what steps are taken by his Department to make sure that all retailers regularly deliver to local Food Offices bread-rationing coupons collected by them; and what is the minimum percentage of such deliveries which is always counted in his Department.
    Mr. Strachey: Local officers have standing instructions to see that every retailer submits promptly any documents which he is required to complete or to surrender. Where necessary they resort to legal proceedings. Food offices count differing proportions of B.U.s delivered to them, but they always check a certain proportion of them, in no case less than 5 per cent.
    Mr. Reid: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are numerous bakers who still have sacks of B.Us. dating right back to 1946, and that they have never been asked to deliver them? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to see that his instructions are carried out?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Prosecutions have been taken successfully in several cases.
    Mr. Reid: I refer to the Minister's instructions to food officers to collect B.Us. from bakers, because I have had many instances given to me where no question has ever been raised, and these things have remained in the bakers' shops for years.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The onus is on the retailer to deliver them. Proceedings have been taken in cases where they have not been delivered.
    Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that this is just another example to show that bread rationing has become a complete farce?

    Crop Rotation, East Africa
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Food whether it is intended to introduce a crop rotation system as part of a general food production policy in East Africa where groundnuts are being at present developed.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. A crop rotation system was recommended by the East African Groundnuts Mission and is
    1822
    described in the White Paper Command 7030. The Overseas Food Corporation informs me that experiments already carried out at Kongwa show that sunflower, maize, grass leys, castor bean, soya bean and sorghum grains may be included in the rotation.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that special measures have been taken by the Corporation to offset, by special methods of tilling, the difficulties arising from monoculture?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Of course, a satisfactory system of crop rotation is one of those methods which certainly will be essential.
    Mr. Collins: In view of the fact that there are to be grass leys, and presumably the green fronds from the groundnuts can be used, is it proposed to establish cattle rearing with this crop rotation?
    Mr. Strachey: It is possible, but my hon. Friend will recognise that it is a matter for experiment in these tropical conditions.

    Rationing (Forms)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food how many copies of forms BMW 1, BMW 1a, BMW 2(1948)M and BMW 3 have been distributed in connection with the new rationing year; what was the weight of paper involved, including envelopes; and what was the cost to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Strachey: Distribution to employers is still going on, but with permission I will circulate statistics of the quantity sent to division and local food offices.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the issue of these unnecessary forms an attempt by the Minister to implement the policy he once is reported to have laid down, when he said:
    "Let us devote intense efforts this winter to the building up of the Communist Party precisely because that is the one way by which we can ensure the immediate revival of the Labour Party."
    Mr. Speaker: What has that to do with the Question, which only asks how many copies of certain forms have been distributed and at what cost to the taxpayer? I read a very long statement the other

    1823
    day about inferences and imputations. The hon. Member seems to go very wide of that Ruling.
    Following is the information:

    Form B.M.W. 1–2 million.

    Form B.M.W. 1A.—1 million.

    Form B.M.W. 2–17¾ million.

    Form B.M.W. 3–1¾ million.

    Weight of paper—43 tons.

    Cost—£4,051 (excluding costs of postage or delivery which cannot be assessed).

    Sugar Exports
    Mr. De la B¸reasked the Minister of Food to what countries the considerable quantities of crude sugar which were imported into this country and refined here have been exported; and what foodstuffs we are receiving in return for the refined sugar thus exported.
    Mr. Strachey: Details of our sugar exports appear in the Trade and Navigation Accounts. Any available foodstuff can be bought with the foreign currencies so earned.

    Poultry and Eggs
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Food if home-produced eggs are graded according to weight; why has the consumer to pay 3d. each irrespective of weight; and if he will fix a smaller price for the smallest eggs.
    Mr. Strachey: The uniform price for grade A, B and C eggs was introduced on 1st February, 1948, as part of the measures to reduce the subsidy.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that this is most unfair to people who have to purchase these eggs, as they are graded by weight? The larger ones are only 3d., the medium ones are 3d. and the very small eggs, which a lot of people are complaining about, are the same price.
    Mr. Strachey: I realise my hon. Friend's difficulty, but it was very necessary to cut down the subsidy. Large, small and medium eggs are very highly subsidised. I am afraid that it would be most difficult to rescind that decision.
    Sir William Darling: Would the Minister consider fixing a price for slightly cracked eggs for which there is a large market in these days?
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Food what quantity of poultry and eggs under separate headings were purchased in the years 1940 and 1947, respectively, from producers in Great Britain.
    Mr. Strachey: My Department purchased no poultry from producers in Great Britain in either 1940 or 1947, and no eggs in 1940. In 1947, we bought 1,283 million eggs from British producers.

    Holidays
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Food what arrangements are made in wakes towns to supply food to the people who cannot afford to go away on holidays.
    Mr. Strachey: Supplies will be available for any extra meals which catering establishments may serve.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many people in these great towns have to purchase sufficient milk on Monday to last for the remainder of the week because the shops are not open? Is he aware that that applies also to bread?
    Mr. Strachey: Every year we make what special arrangements we can to meet this situation.
    Mr. Mitchison: What happens to the cows during the wakes?

    Imported Fats (Condition)
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Food how many tons of edible fats, purchased by his Department in the Argentine, have arrived here in an inedible and rancid condition.
    Mr. Strachey: Seven thousand three hundred tons of animal fat purchased as "edible" under the Andes Agreement have arrived in this country, up to the present. About 500 tons of this have been reported unfit for human consumption; it will be used for soap.
    Mr. Fraser: Is it not highly unsatisfactory that, with a fairly large staff in Buenos Aires, this sort of thing should happen; further, why was this fat not properly checked before it was taken on board?
    Mr. Strachey: The question of responsibility for this, and the payment for it, is still under discussion. Responsibility is not necessarily ours.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does the Minister not have these cargoes examined by his inspectors before they are shipped from the Argentine?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir. The responsibility in this case is, in our view, on the shippers. These incidents take place and always have taken place in pre-war trade. We are most careful to see that the responsibility should not necessarily lie with us.
    Sir W. Darling: Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that we will not pay the price of edible fat but that we will pay, on settlement, only for soap fat?
    Mr. Strachey: The matter is in some senses sub judice, but it is certainly our intention.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: What proportion of the total sum was paid against the bills of lading?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot go into the exact commercial proceedings which are going on, but the responsibility here, in our view, is with the shipper.

    Bread (Meals)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food how many prosecutions there have been during the last three months for serving bread at a meal in addition to three other courses.
    Mr. Strachey: During the three months ended 31st May, 38 charges were preferred against nine persons for the illegal service of bread at a meal.

    Plum Jam
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider taking plum jam off the ration in view of the large stocks of last season's jam which still remain unsold, and with a view to clearing the way for the new crop.
    Mr. Strachey: If we could find any way of doing this which would not involve extra sugar, I should consider the hon. Member's suggestion very favourably.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Minister why last season's stocks of jam should now go bad, or at any rate deteriorate very largely? Is it not possible to find a solution of this matter, and is he not aware
    1826
    that we are at the present time importing jam off the ration from abroad? Why do we allow the importation of what we could produce ourselves?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not accept either of those implications.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not the truth? I only deal with the truth.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does the Minister's reply mean that there really will be jam tomorrow?

    Retail Licences
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food when, to whom, and in what form his decision to permit applications for transfer of a retail licence to be made within three months of closure of former business was promulgated; in how many cases has he applied this decision retrospectively; and in how many cases has he permitted such transfer after a longer period than three months.
    Mr. Strachey: The decision to extend the period from 10 days to three months was promulgated in the form of a circular issued to all Food Executive Officers on 11th August, 1947. No applications have been made to the Headquarters of my Department to apply the new regulation retrospectively, nor has this been done except in the case of Mr. Grey. As this was the case which caused me to amend the regulations, which I considered, and consider, to have been far too harsh, Mr. Grey's application was granted in accordance with my Department's precedents. No further cases can be allowed after a longer period than three months unless very special circumstances can be adduced.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food on what date he became aware of the fact that Mr. Kent had submitted an application for a retail licence at 8, Lavender Road, Reading, prior to that submitted by Mr. O. Grey.
    Mr. Strachey: The attention of the Headquarters of my Department was first drawn to the existence of Mr. Kent's application on 28th August, 1947, on receipt of a copy of a resolution passed by the Reading Food Control Committee on 22nd. August.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer indicate that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department did not pay attention to the transcript note of the proceedings on Mr. Grey's appeal, which took place in May, and which, on the first page, indicates the existence of a previous application?
    Mr. Strachey: I understood it arose from the fact that Mr. Kent made no appeal, and, therefore, the Headquarters of the Ministry, as distinct from the Reading Food Control Committee, had no knowledge of Mr. Kent's application until 28th August.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that, on the first page of the transcript of the proceedings on Mr. Grey's appeal, there appears a notification of Mr. Kent's existence and of his application, and is it not a fact that the transcript note of those proceedings was forwarded to his Ministry when the matter was being considered?
    Mr. Strachey: I think this was an appeal from the Reading Food Control Committee to the Divisional Food Officer, not to Headquarters.

    Dehydrated Vegetables (Imports)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that an agreement has been entered into with Holland which, amongst other items, includes £200,000 worth of dehydrated vegetables; and on what grounds he considers that the importation of these dehydrated vegetables is necessary.
    Mr. Strachey: As part of the general trade agreement with Holland, we undertook to permit private traders to import up to £200,000 worth of dehydrated vegetables. Whether this amount will be bought will depend on the demand by consumers in this country.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that there are six factories producing dehydrated vegetables in this country at the present time, that this is a new industry, and that, if this dumping of surpluses is allowed, this new industry will be knocked on the head?
    Mr. Strachey: I could not agree that this is a case of dumping of surpluses.

    Grain Growing Scheme, Queensland
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food whether the scheme for growing Summer grain in Queensland is primarily to obtain animal feedingstuffs or is it to obtain bacon and ham; and whether the Corporation proposed to be established by the Queensland Government is connected with the Overseas Food Corporation.
    Mr. Strachey: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the statement given to the House on 7th April last, which gives precise answers to both parts of his Question.
    Mr. York: Is it not a fact that the scheme has been put forward in the agricultural Press of this country as a scheme to produce feedingstuffs for animals, and is not the Minister further aware of the statements made in the Queensland Parliament to the effect that this is entirely for the production of bacon and ham?
    Mr. Strachey: The statement to which I referred deals precisely with that point in some detail, and I think it would rather occupy the time of the House if I read it again.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Are any of these Summer grains going to be sent to Eire under the trade agreement?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

  WORLD FOOD COUNCIL (REPORT)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Food if he has considered the Report of the Second Session of the World Food Council; and what action it is proposed to take.
  Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have examined the report of the Second Session of the Food and Agriculture Organisation Council. The measures that we are taking on the matters covered by the Report are too many and various to be summarised in answer to a Parliamentary Question. I would mention only the home agricultural expansion programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 21st August last,

  1829
  and the establishment of the Colonial Development Corporation and the Overseas Food Corporation. As the hon. Member knows, the Overseas Food Corporation has already begun work on two major enterprises, namely, the East African Groundnut Scheme and the Queensland Scheme for growing coarse grains for pig production and other purposes.
  As to the more technical recommendations, such as those concerned with animal and plant diseases, control of pests, grassland improvement and so on, the Government are taking action both at home and in co-operation with other countries. We are also playing a prominent part in the international arrangements for allocating scarce foodstuffs and agricultural means of production.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the serious state of affairs revealed in this Report will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of publishing a White Paper so that the world can see the contribution which Britain intends to make in dealing with this serious problem?
  Mr. Strachey: I am very much in sympathy with the suggestion that, by any practical means, we should call the attention of the world to the leading part which I think we can fairly say we are taking in this matter.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate consultations with all European countries and the U.S.S.R. with a view of deciding how best this country in co-operation with others can implement the requests made in the Report of the World Food Council; and if he will take steps to increase the output of farm machinery and spare parts and have it exported to those countries who will undertake to ship here food and timber or other urgently required materials.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As a member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, His Majesty's Government are already co-operating in action arising out of the report of the Second Session of the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, of which the Soviet Union has not yet sought to become a Member. In reply to the second part of the Question, the contribution which can be made to European recovery by the export of farm machinery is under constant and active consideration
  1830
  by His Majesty's Government as a member of both the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and the Economic Commission for Europe.
  Mr. Collins: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance with regard to machinery that no exports will be permitted unless he is satisfied that there is a sufficient output to meet the requirements of our own country?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, a balance is kept in this matter.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to expedite the Conference of British Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in view of the report of the World Food Council; and that consideration shall be given to the need for the Commonwealth implementation of the report.
  The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I shall make clear in reply to the next Question on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), I have for some time been trying to arrange a meeting of my fellow Prime Ministers as early as possible. In reply to the second part, I regret that I cannot say whether this question will be discussed if a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers takes place in London. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are studying the Report of the World Food Council with care and diligence, and have no doubt that other Commonwealth Governments are doing the same.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of asking the Commonwealth representatives to this meeting to give priority to immediate Commonwealth needs, in order that we can make the maximum contribution towards a solution of the problem contained in the World Food Council's report? Will he also consider the raising of a Commonwealth loan in order that we can have a large development of Commonwealth agriculture and industry?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously, I cannot answer the second question without very great consideration and notice. I am taking note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  FRENCH BRANDY AND WINES (PRICES)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food to what extent the lower cost of the francs required for this year's purchases of brandy and champagne was set off by higher customs duties; and when will new retail prices be announced.
  Mr. Strachey: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The new retail prices for champagne and sparkling wine were announced on 30th April last, and for brandy on 13th June.

  —

  Per case of 12 bottles.

  Present Price Per Bottle.

  1948 Concessions Imports Maximum Retail Prices Per Bottle.

  Price f.o.b. before devaluation.

  Price f.o.b. after devaluation.

  Old Duty.

  New Duty.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  CHAMPAGNE.

  (1) Grande Marque Vintage

  130

  0

  117

  0

  88

  0

  75

  0

  29

  0

  25

  6

  (2) Grande Marque Non-Vintage.

  115

  0

  104

  0

  88

  0

  75

  0

  26

  0

  23

  6

  (3) Buyer's Own Brand Vintage.

  115

  0

  103

  0

  88

  0

  75

  0

  26

  0

  23

  6

  (4) Buyer's Own Brand Non-Vintage.

  100

  0

  90

  0

  88

  0

  75

  0

  24

  0

  22

  0

  SPARKLING WINES.

  (5) Red and White (other than Burgundy).

  72

  0

  65

  0

  88

  0

  75

  0

  21

  0

  18

  9

  BRANDY.

  (6) Three Star

  110

  0

  100

  0

  249

  6

  41

  0

  42

  0

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the suggested conference of Dominion Prime Ministers this year.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have for some time been in correspondence with my fellow Prime Ministers with a view to arranging an early discussion between us in London on broad general questions of common concern. As I have explained to the House before, there is a standing difficulty in finding a time at which all the Prime Ministers, with their heavy domestic responsibilities, are able to leave home. For this reason, it has not been possible to arrange a meeting, as I had hoped to, during the summer
  Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister like to correct the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary a fortnight ago that the franc has been devalued by only 10 per cent., the true figure being 45 per cent.?
  Mr. Strachey: I have not seen my hon. Friend's statement, but the effect of the devaluation of the franc on f.o.b. prices for champagne and brandy is a reduction of about 10 per cent.
  Following is the information:
  months. But I am glad to tell the hon. Member that I have found sufficient common ground to enable me to suggest that we should meet in October. The final replies to this suggestion have not all come in, but I have every reason to hope that a meeting can then take place.
  I should add that the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Chifley, had already expressed the desire to pay a short visit to London in July for discussions with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I warmly welcomed this proposal and I am glad to say that Mr. Chifley has now definitely arranged to visit us then.
  Mr. Granville: May I ask the Prime Minister if these discussions will cover the wider interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, particularly in relation to

  1833
  India's future, and will the discussions also cover the question of Commonwealth consultative machinery at policy-making level?
  The Prime Minister: I could not make a statement on exactly what will be the extent of these discussions. Obviously, it is a matter which I have to discuss with the other Prime Ministers.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend arrange that our oldest Dominion, Newfoundland, will be represented, in spite of the transitional state of affairs there at the present moment?
  The Prime Minister: I think that is obviously quite impossible at the moment. My hon. Friend will realise that, at this very moment, they are engaged in a plebiscite for the future Government of that country.
  Mr. Chamberlain: If they finalise that arrangement, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that they are our oldest Dominion?
  The Prime Minister: That hardly arises.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: In arranging these meetings, has the Prime Minister made it clear to the other Prime Ministers that he is quite prepared that the discussions should take place elsewhere in the Empire?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly; that is always understood.

  WAR MEDALS (OVERSEA RESIDENTS)
  Sir Ian Fraserasked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to enable ex-Service men and women residing in the Commonwealth and Empire and in other overseas countries to obtain British war medals now being issued.
  The Prime Minister: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 31st May, residents overseas who are ex-members of United Kingdom Forces should apply by letter to the Headquarters of their respective Services. Issue to those who served in Colonial Forces will be arranged locally. Issue to ex-members of other British Commonwealth Forces will be a responsibility of the respective Governments concerned.
  Sir I. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister make this information known in the Dominions, the Colonies and Eire?
  The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that notice will be taken of this reply. If there should be anything further I will certainly arrange for it to be made known.

  MINISTER OF LABOUR (RETURN FROM U.S.A.)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present situation, he proposes to recall the Minister of Labour to this country.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is returning to this country by air.

  LEGAL AID (LEGISLATION)
  Mr. William Shepherdasked the Attorney-General when he expects to bring in legislation implementing the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report, in respect of assistance to poor persons wishing to take action at law.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) given on 26th January.

  AGRICULTURE

    Equipment and Repairs, Kent
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the shortage of ploughshares and other farming equipment and of repair facilities in the county of Kent; and, in view of the vital necessity to obtain maximum food production, what steps is he taking to remedy this position.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am not aware that farmers in Kent are having any special difficulty in meeting their present needs for ploughshares or most items of farming equipment, and, according to my information, repair facilities in the county are adequate. Production of ploughshares is much greater than it was last autumn, and supplies should be enough to meet

    1835
    current needs, although not yet sufficient to enable dealers to build up stocks. Some items of agricultural machinery are scarce generally, but everything possible is being done to increase supplies. Kent farmers are receiving a fair share of these scarce items.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the vital necessity for the maximum production of food, is this not further evidence of the folly of State control? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give freedom and a No.1 priority to the issue of this equipment in the interests of food production?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot be aware that agricultural machinery is being turned out this year at double the rate of even last year.
    Sir W. Smithers: It is not enough.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared still to assure the House that the essential needs of agriculture in regard to machinery are receiving priority over exports?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. The only shortages, as hon. Members are aware, are crawler tractors, heavy ploughs, combine harvesters and one-man pick-up balers, for all of which we have been entirely dependent upon imports up to recent years.
    Mr. John Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the South-West there is already a recurring shortage of ploughshares?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no such complaints have been brought to my notice.

    Colorado Beetle
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has noted the large number of cases in which Colorado beetles have been found in this country within recent weeks; and whether in the light of this fact he will make a statement about the steps his Department is taking to deal with the menace.
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of Colorado beetle have been identified in England; and if he is satisfied that all possible precautions are being taken to avoid a large scale outbreak.
    Mr. T. Williams: The number of instances of Colorado beetles breeding on potato crops so far discovered this year is only seven. In addition, there have been about 40 single beetles found with imported produce or near docks and about 240 on cross-channel ships. My Department has an organisation equipped to deal with the pest in the field, wherever it may be found, including adequate spraying and dusting machinery, supplies of insecticides and trained operators. The precise steps taken are described in a recent article in the Ministry's journal, "Agriculture," copies of which I am sending to hon. Members. Precautionary spraying of potato crops in areas where the beetle is most likely to appear is also undertaken on a considerable scale; some 25,000 to 30,000 acres are expected to be treated this year. These precautions are designed to obviate the risk of a large scale outbreak.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. Cuthbertasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to remedy the unsatisfactory system of supplying labour to farmers from the European voluntary workers pool, as the labour is irregular in attendance, and farmers have to pay full 48 hours wages, but do not obtain 48 hours work owing to deductions in time for meals, travelling, etc., the difference in time not being made up as is customary with British labour.
    Mr. T. Williams: I do not regard the system of supplying E.V.W. labour to farmers as unsatisfactory. The farmer pays for the number of hours the workers are on the farm, less the usual one hour per full day for meal breaks. Where, owing to some unavoidable circumstances such as a transport hitch, workers arrive after the normal starting time, the farmer is charged only from the time of arrival.
    Sir W. Smithers: How much an hour is charged?
    Mr. Williams: The appropriate Agricultural Wages Board rate.
    Mr. Renton: Are these E.V.W.'s given a guaranteed week?
    Mr. Williams: That matter does not arise on this Question.

    Sheep and Pigs (Purchases)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the purchases by the Ministry of Food from producers in Great Britain in 1947 show a drop of 4,750,000 sheep and lambs and 3,750,000 pigs as compared to 1940; and what steps he proposes to take to get production back to the 1940 level.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the increases in prices for fat sheep and lambs announced last August, coupled with the special measures taken in the Agricultural (Emergency Payments) Act, 1947, to assist hill sheep farmers to recover from losses caused by the severe weather in 1947, provide a sufficient incentive to farmers to expand their flocks as rapidly as practicable. Prices for fat pigs were also increased last August to a level which should encourage expansion, but larger supplies of feeding stuffs are also needed. As opportunity permits, more feeding stuffs for pigs will be provided. In the meantime, pig breeding is being encouraged by the decision to allow the retention of a percentage of barley and wheat from this year's harvest.

    River Kenn Drainage Scheme
    Mr. Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Agriculture why work on the River Kenn Drainage Scheme has not yet begun.
    Mr. T. Williams: Certain questions relating to bridges over the river had to be settled before these works could be approved. These matters have been cleared in the last day or two, and approval is now being given.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the very long delay spread over many months has made the promises of the Minister look rather stupid? Will he see that similar schemes in the future are pressed forward with greater energy?
    Mr. Williams: I cannot agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman that the engineers who are responsible are stupid.

    Cropping (Directions)
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to issue an order authorising the issue of directions for cropping for the 1948–49 season.
    Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of 21st June to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans).
    Mr. York: Are we to take it that in view of the satisfactory outcome of this season's cropping no directions are to be issued?
    Mr. Williams: In the reply referred to, I said:
    "They do not propose to seek emergency powers to direct farmers to grow specific crops.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 107.]
    Mr. York: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the rumours going around about this subject are unfounded?
    Mr. Williams: My reply meant entirely what it said.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not exercise any of his existing policy regulation powers with regard to compulsory crops?
    Mr. Williams: I have already given that assurance about half a dozen times.

    Ploughshares
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the production of ploughshares is sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the hold up in Autumn ploughing.
    Mr. T. Williams: The present rate of production is much greater than a year ago and is still being substantially increased. There should be sufficient ploughshares for the Autumn, provided that production is maintained as planned, that distribution is even and conditions for ploughing are not abnormal.
    Mr. York: Is the Minister aware that the same complacency was held in his Department last year, and that the same warnings were also given? Will he make quite sure that there is no shortage of steel allocation to hold up the production of ploughshares?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has not been any complacency and that there is no shortage of steel for making ploughshares.

    Pig Production
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now announce plans for increased pig production.
    Mr. T. Williams: The plans for increased pig production included within the agricultural expansion programme announced in August last are already taking effect. The returns collected on 4th March show an increase of breeding sows by 60 per cent. in the preceding 12 months. The retention of up to 20 per cent. of millable wheat and barley from the 1948 crop for feeding to the growers' livestock is expected to facilitate a further expansion of pig production on many farms.
    Mr. Shepherd: As pig production is still inadequate for our needs, does not the Minister feel that the present feedingstuff position justifies a more adventurous policy than has been pursued?
    Mr. Williams: That is a matter of doubt and speculation.

    Soilless Cultivation
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture what work is being done on hydroponics; and whether he is satisfied that practicable results are likely to come from this field.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am sending the hon. Member a full account of current work on soilless cultivation which has appeared in "Agriculture," the monthly journal of my Department. Promising results have been obtained from a method in which sand and gravel have been used, but its economic worth has yet to be determined. Commercial application is likely to be limited to crops of high value grown under glass.

  DOCKS STRIKE (STATE OF EMERGENCY)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make about the strike at the London Docks.
  The Prime Minister: The number of those on strike in the London Docks this morning is 19,040; 5,877 dockers are at work. The general build up of the Service
  1840
  personnel is proceeding according to plan, and approximately 1,000 members of the Services are now engaged in the clearance of food cargoes.
  Members of the Services have cleared all the perishable foodstuffs, and from this morning the meat ships now lying in the port are being discharged in order to maintain the largest possible proportion of car-case meat in this week and next week's ration. The full ration of 1s. worth of meat will be made up with canned corned meat in each case. Bacon and butter are also being discharged.
  It will be necessary to move other food cargoes lying in the ports in order to avoid a breakdown in the distribution of other foodstuffs.
  The stoppage extended this morning to the docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead, where out of a total labour force of 16,000 it is reported that upwards of 4,000 dockers are on strike.
  In these circumstances His Majesty, who is in Scotland on a Royal Tour, has been advised to issue a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, declaring that a state of emergency exists, and a Privy Council will be held for the purpose later today. Thereafter Orders in Council will be made giving powers to the Government to do all that is necessary both by deploying Service personnel wherever required for the maintenance of essential food supplies, and by the requisition of equipment for the maintenance of the life of the community. These regulations, as the House knows, are subject to an Affirmative Resolution within seven days. Full use will be made of Service personnel in order to maintain the distribution of the food of the people and the economic life of the community.
  The irresponsible action of a section of the workers is endangering the regular supply of food to the people and is inflicting grave injuries on the nation. I propose to make a broadcast speech at 9 o'clock this evening, so that the nation may understand fully what is at stake.
  Mr. Eden: The statement which the Prime Minister has made is, of course, one of the greatest gravity. It is not for us to complain of that because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on several occasions last week we underlined what we thought was the growing gravity of

  1841
  the situation and we thought the Government were taking an over-optimistic view. I must ask the Prime Minister, however, what is the position about these Orders? As I understand it, under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty first issues a Royal Proclamation, which has been arranged for, and the next stage is that Orders are made by the Government. As I understand it, those Orders become effective from the moment that they are made. It therefore becomes of the utmost urgency that the House should be in a position to debate these Orders, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us when it is proposed that these Orders shall be available to the House and, therefore, when we shall be able to debate them. I should have thought myself that in view of the great gravity of this, it would be desirable that the Orders made should be available today so the House could debate them tomorrow.
  The Prime Minister: The Orders will be made—the Regulations—as soon as possible and will be laid as soon as possible. Thereafter, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they are subject to Affirmative Resolution and, therefore, they can be debated. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the Leader of the House as to the day which is most convenient for a Debate.
  Mr. Eden: I am going to press this point on the Prime Minister. I am sure the House sees that these are very wide powers indeed and are very rarely used, and, therefore, I think, a special responsibility lies on the Government. However justified the particular regulations may be, I think that the House should see them at the first possible moment, because they come into force before we have a chance to debate them, and so I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that, certainly within the next 48 hours—I would put this on record—we consider that the matter should be debated by this House.
  The Prime Minister: Certainly, I will make them available as soon as possible and certainly within 48 hours. On the question when they should be debated, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He will have to look at it to see whether an immediate Debate would be convenient or not—I
  1842
  am not opposing this matter; I realise it is one of very great gravity and the House has to keep these things under its hand.
  Mr. Clement Davies: Because this matter is one of such great gravity, I should have thought that every other Business ought to be postponed in order that this should be considered as the first Business of the House and, therefore, the moment that the Orders have been issued the matter ought to be raised straightaway in the House and the House should have the proper opportunity of debating them.
  Mr. Piratin: In view of the figures which the Prime Minister has just given the House, is it not the case that all along he has been misinformed, in that during last week he told us that he had hopes that the dockers would return to work? In view of the fact that he has been so misinformed, would he not reconsider his attitude and meet the leaders of the Strike Committee in order to discuss with them the terms on which they will return to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is the Prime Minister aware that this statement which he has made today, and which has rightly been described as reflecting a critical situation, will meet with the wide protest of the organised working-class of the country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the hon. Member is an authority on the views of the organised workers of this country. The organised workers of this country are very well aware of the need for preserving the trade union structure and not allowing it to be destroyed, and the issue here is one in which there is an unofficial strike. The suggestion of the hon. Member is one which I certainly cannot accept for a moment.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the Prime Minister think that if he were to use his personal influence successfully to persuade the Docks Board, or whatever is the appropriate body, to cancel the penalty which, as is apparent from the Press, the men regard as a hateful vestige of what is obviously a grossly excessive penalty—does he think that then the men would go back to work?
  The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question. This is a matter which has been settled through the machinery

  1843
  set up and approved on both sides. It has been subject to appeal and a decision has been given and, therefore, this is a hypothetical question, because I do not propose to interfere in the way suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Eden: May I ask one more question? If I understand the statement right, these powers are to be used in order not only that food may be moved, but that the export trade of this country may be restored. Am I right in that?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1946–47
Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Army Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1947, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Friday.
Appropriation Account for the Army Department [presented 20th January] referred to the Committee.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
  Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).
  3.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 6, page 7, line 41; Clause 10, page 8, line 44 and page 8, line 45; Clause 54, page 36, line 19 and page 36, line 21; Clause 57, page 38, line 27, and to Schedule 3, page 51, line 49, standing on the Notice Paper in my name."
  This is necessary to enable us to fulfil certain promises that we made in Committee upstairs, and I hope the House will agree to the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Application of preceding provisions to children already subject, or becoming subject, to orders of court.)
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) Where under section seventy-four of the said Act of 1933 or section seventy-eight of the said Act of 1937 a child is under the supervision of the managers of an approved school or under paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the said Act of 1933 or paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the said Act of 1937 the managers of an approved school by licence permit a child to live away from the school, and in either case it appears to the managers that the child has no home or that his home is unsatisfactory, then with the consent of the managers, in a case falling within the said section seventy-four or seventy-eight, or if the licence so provides, in a case falling within the said paragraph 6, a local authority may (without prejudice to the provisions of section one of this Act if those provisions apply) receive the child into their care; and where they do so—

    (a) the provisions of this Act, except subsections (4) and (5) of section one thereof and so much of subsection (3) of that section as requires a local authority to endeavour to secure that the care of a child is taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend, shall apply as if the child had been received into their care under the said section one; but

    (b) the child shall not for the purposes of the said Act of 1933 or the said Act of 1937 be deemed to have ceased to be under the care of the managers of the school.

    1845
    Clause 6 (3, a) provides that the making of an approved school order in respect of a child in care will take the child out of the care of the local authority and will bring to an end any resolution that may be in force. The purpose of this is to avoid a conflict of authorities, because the approved school order confers parental rights on the managers. This Amendment will empower the local authority, with the consent of the school managers, to receive into its care any child, not only a child who was in care previously, on license or under supervision, who is in a home or whose home, in the opinion of the managers, is unsatisfactory. The Amendment is proposed as a result of discussion in Committee on a suggestion rather similar to this, and I hope that it will prove acceptable to the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Duty of parents to maintain contact with local authorities having their children in care.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) Where under subsection (4) of section one of this Act a local authority take over the care of a child from another local authority, that other authority shall where possible inform the parent of the child that the care of the child has been so taken over."
    This Amendment, I think, ought to be considered in conjunction with the next one on the Paper, also a Government Amendment. It places a duty on a local authority, where possible, to inform the parent if the child is transferred from its care to the care of a local authority in whose area the child was held to be ordinarily resident when taken into care. This partly meets the point of an Amendment that was moved in Committee. That Amendment was rather wider, and we felt that we should limit this to the case—and I think this is in line with what the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said at the time—of the transfer of a child from the care of one local authority to another; and that the parent should be informed of that transfer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 45, leave out "the last foregoing Subsection," and insert "Subsection (1) of this Section."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Provisions as to entry and inspection.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 36, line 19, at the beginning, to insert:
    "It shall be the duty of local authorities from time to time to cause children in voluntary homes in their area to be visited in the interests of the wellbeing of the children, and."
    This Amendment will put local authorities under a duty to visit children in voluntary homes in their areas. The Clause as it stands empowers a local authority to enter a voluntary home for the purpose of visiting the children in the home. On reflection we think it would be better to put the duty on the local authority to do this. It has always been envisaged that local authorities should do it. This Amendment merely makes the matter a little more clear, and slightly alters the emphasis.
    3.45 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith: I am quite in agreement with the Amendment, but I should like to be quite certain as to one aspect of this matter before assenting to it. Visitation and inspection, I think, are desirable, What I do not think would be desirable is to empower local authorities to interfere with voluntary homes. I want to be assured that while the local authority will visit and inspect, it can go no further except through the Home Secretary himself. It would be wrong if local authorities were able to give directions to the managers of voluntary homes. If a local authority has anything to complain of, I want to know that the complaint will be made to the right hon. Gentleman, and will be transmitted by him to the managers of the voluntary home.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I should like to stress the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. May we have an assurance that these visits, if and when it is found necessary that they should take place, will take place in co-operation with the organisation or society controlling the home? We do not want, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, these quite well intentioned snoopers going into homes and making themselves possibly, un

    1847
    pleasant, unless there is a pretty good reason for that. If the visits are paid in good humoured and good natured co-operation with the society running the home, then, undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong about them; and it is rather a good thing that the visits should be paid, for it is a good thing that the children should be kept under observation, especially if they are outside the area of the local authority and thus somewhat removed from contact with it. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is essential that these great societies which have done and are doing so much voluntary work, should have their rights preserved to run their own homes in their own way, without undue interruption or interference.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: The wording of this Amendment does not include the word "inspection" at all. It speaks of visits "in the interests of the wellbeing of the children." All of us agree that many of the voluntary homes are great institutions; but I think that, equally, all of us are satisfied that there have been several voluntary homes that have not come up to standard; and I should like an assurance—I think all of us would like an assurance—that visiting here does include inspection, without, however, including multiple interference which would upset those who run the homes. It seems to me that if we provide for visiting only, the purpose of the Amendment will be so circumscribed that the Amendment will achieve nothing useful at all, but, perhaps, friction and confusion. I wonder if it should include provision for inspection specifically, as well as for visiting?
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would indicate what "visiting" means and what powers the local authorities will be able to exercise? Will they be able to inspect homes? Will the local authorities have any powers or authority to do anything? What will they be able to do if they find something of which they disapprove?
    Mr. Skinnard: It seems to me that the form of the Amendment covers all the precautions that hon. Members wish to be taken. I have had some experience of visiting homes, and if one
    1848
    is interested in a particular child in any of these homes, the general custom is for the management of the home to insist on an informal inspection taking place, because they are very anxious that the visitor should see the way in which the child is being brought up. They desire the whole background of their care for him to be shown. I am glad that the word "inspection" is not used. The purpose is not investigation but co-operation. I think that the choice of words is particularly good, because they focus the purpose of the visit on the well-being of the particular child in the care of the local authority, and, at the same time, do not prevent visiting in a fuller sense being carried out by the local authority. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment in the terms in which it has been couched.
    Mr. Dtumpleton: If this Amendment is necessary—as I believe it is—it is obvious that there should be visitation at fairly regular intervals, and I should like my hon. Friend to give some clearer definition, if he can, of what is meant by the phrase "from time to time." It is possible that some less active local authority may be satisfied with a visit once in 10 years. Will that be covered by the phrase "time to time"? Cannot some words such as "not less frequently than annually" be inserted?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Amendment has been put down at all, and in response to what plea in the Committee upstairs?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think that the Amendment was put down in response to anything that was said in Committee. It was felt by my right hon. Friend that it would be better to make it a duty of the local authorities, rather than merely give them the power, which they already have under the Clause, to visit these homes. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) can rest assured that the Amendment gives no additional powers, nor does it involve inspections in any technical sense. The object of it is to ensure that those concerned with children in the local authority and in the voluntary organisations in the area, shall be in touch with each other. I do not think that I can add anything to the definition "visit."

    1849
    Anything in the nature of powers arising out of what may be found as the result of the visit is a matter for the Home Secretary, and I think that should be so. Any duplicating or overlapping powers should not be granted. I hope that the Committee will accept the assurance that there are no new powers involved by the Amendment, and that the only difference between the Amendment and the Clause is that, whereas the Clause empowers the local authority to keep in touch, the Amendment makes it a duty for them to do so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 36, line 21, leave out "and," and insert "(4)."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 38, line 27, to leave out "councils of counties and county boroughs," and to insert "local authorities."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. There are similar Amendments which come later on the Order Paper. The purpose is to make clearer what are the local authorities. Clause 38 states what local authorities are referred to throughout the Bill. The Amendment is necessary to bring this paragraph in accord with the rest of the Bill, and to enable the Exchequer grant to be paid on expenses incurred by the local authority in the payment of compensation authorised by the regulations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 51, line 49, at the end, to insert:
  "The National Assistance Act, 1948 11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 29.
  In the Sixth Schedule, in paragraph 8, in head (a) of sub-paragraph (2) after the word 'Act,' there shall be inserted the words 'or of Part II of the Children Act, 1948.'"
  This Amendment is necessary to provide for the case where premises of the kind referred to in Clause 13 (2)—that is separate nurseries for children under
  1850
  three—have been transferred to and vest in the Minister of Health under the National Assistance Act, 1948 and where part of the premises is not used as a hospital but is used solely for the accommodation of children.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children, etc.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move in page 2, line 21, to leave out from "that," to end of line 22, and to insert:
  "the care of the child is taken over either—

  (a) by a parent or guardian of his, or

  (b) by a relative or friend of his, being, where possible, a person of the same religious persuasion as the child or who gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion."

  Subsection (3) of the Clause puts a duty on the local authority where it would be for the welfare of the child to try to get the care of the child taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend. The Amendment provides that any such relative or friend should, where possible, be a person of the same religious persuasion as the child, or one who gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion. This will meet the wishes expressed in Committee.
  Commander Galbraith: The Amendment meets the feelings expressed by hon. Members and particularly the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) during the Committee stage. We have not much doubt about the intentions of the Home Secretary in regard to this matter, but we are glad to see that those intentions are to be stated clearly in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Effect of assumption by local authority of parental rights.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move in page 5, line 11, after "induces," to insert "or persistently attempts to induce."
  This Clause sets out certain offences, and it was suggested in Committee that those offences should be widened. It is already an offence in respect of a child

  1851
  in the care of a local authority, who is subject to a resolution, for any person knowingly to assist or induce the child to run away or to harbour or conceal the child and prevent him from returning to the place from which he has run away. The Amendment widens that and makes it an offence if anyone persistently attempts to induce the child to run away. That is not as wide as some of the suggestions made in Committee, but I hope that it will meet the wishes of the Committee.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: What do the words
  "persistently attempts to induce"
  mean? I can understand what inducement to run away means, but what does attempting to induce mean? Would not "attempt" be an inducement itself? If it is not an inducement, what is it?
  Mr. Younger: I should have thought that if one induces someone to run away, it indicates that one is successful. One might persistently attempt to do it and be unsuccessful in inducing the child to run away.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: Any inducement to a person to run away is still an inducement, although it may be that the inducement is not successful.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Duration and rescission of resolutions under section two.)
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end to insert:
  "(4) Any parent, guardian, relative or friend who is aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to allow a child, in respect of whom a resolution is in force, to be under his control under subsection (3) of section three of this Act may complain to a juvenile court, or in Scotland the sheriff, having jurisdiction where the complainant resides, and if the court or sheriff think fit, they or he may, without determining the resolution, order that the local authority shall allow the child to be under the control of the complainant subject to such conditions as the court may require."
  With this Amendment I return to a point previously made when unsuccessfully moving Amendments in Committee. This Amendment is an attempt to meet a difficulty. It was put by the Under-Secretary that the rights of the unsatisfactory parent would be revived; that the resolution would remain as if the local
  1852
  authority had acted under Clause 3 (3), which is, of course, an extremely important point. On the other hand, if the local authority objected to the decision of the court it could divest itself of responsibility by rescinding the resolution under Clause 4 (2) It is not anticipated that the court would act in opposition to the local authority without very good reason, any more than it now revokes orders against the advice of the local authority. But the mere fact that the complainant has an opportunity of ventilating his grievance often clears the air and sometimes brings entirely new facts to light. Also, it will help to ensure that careful attention is given to requests under Clause 3 (3).
  Experience shows that administrative bodies develop inevitably some professional bias; approved schools have been known to hang on to children who were not improving, and probation officers have been known to cling to cases which did not respond, because the admission of failure seems to imply some criticism of themselves. Is it certain—and we must be certain—that an uncle, or an aunt, or some friend who knows the child to be unhappy or unsettled will always get a completely free and fair hearing under Clause 3 (3)? The approach of the inexperienced is not always tactful; in a juveniles' court many parents and relatives appear aggressive and tiresome, and very often make a bad first impression; they may even have fallen foul of a particular officer in some other direction. Yet, for all this, they may be able and willing to provide normal and affectionate homes, and a careful investigation of their claims may be well worth while in the interests of the child.
  As the Home Secretary knows, this Amendment has behind it the full weight of the Magistrates' Association. Therefore, I ask him to weigh his words carefully when he replies. On this point the Curtis Committee—I will not bother to quote the report again, as I did so in Committee—used very definite words, which were also quoted by the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) in Committee. Ought we to commit a child to even the best local authority—and the Home Secretary has no illusions that their efficiency varies—for perhaps 18 years, in such a way that no friend or relative can question its discretion or secure a

  1853
  judicial inquiry if an application under Clause 3 (3) is refused? That is asking a lot. I want to see local authorities trusted; but this is not a question of not trusting; this is a question of trying to rehabilitate the home in the interests of the child. I believe that were the Home Secretary to accede to this request—as he has generously done elsewhere—he would improve the Bill, he would do no injury to anyone, and he would give one more chance to the child.
  Mr. Royle: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In Committee we had an opportunity of stating fully our views on this matter. When it was first discussed I certainly got from my right hon. Friend the impression that he would look at this question very diligently between then and now. The essential thing is that at present the Bill places on the parent the onus to appeal against the taking over of a child, and I think that the parent should have the added safeguard of the local authority having to take the case to a juvenile court. Then, the parent would be fully safeguarded, and I cannot see that there would be anything in the Bill to take away the powers to be vested in local authorities by my right hon. Friend. During the passage of this Bill we have heard the phrase, which has become rather hackneyed, that nothing replaces the love, beauty and joy of normal home life. I feel that we should do everything possible to try to ensure the continuance of that state of affairs. If the local authority is compelled to go to a juvenile court there is some safeguard. This Amendment does not deal with the position in quite that way, but it is a compromise which I beg the Home Secretary to accept.
  Mr. Younger: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this Amendment. I can assure hon. Members that this matter has been most carefully considered between the Committee stage and now. We are here dealing exclusively with children in respect of whom the local authority has, at the relevant moment, the parental rights under a resolution. The Bill provides for the rescission of a resolution on the complaint of parent or guardian—the person in respect of whom the resolution was made—at any time; not only in the initial stages, but at any time. Moreover, under Clause 1 it is the duty
  1854
  of the local authority to arrange, where appropriate, for the control of any child in its care to be taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend. So far, I think, so good.
  This Amendment seeks to affect the discretion of the local authority, which is acting as parent and has parental rights, to allow some other person—who is neither parent nor guardian—to take over control of the child. I appreciate fully the arguments advanced by the two hon. Members, but I think it is a matter of judgment whether it is right that this interference should be allowed with the discretion of the local authority having parental rights. No such right is given, or proposed to be given, to interfere with children who are simply under care, under Clause 1. The Amendment relates, rather oddly, only to the case of children the subject of resolutions under Clause 2. That is perhaps only a minor point, but the Amendment would seem to work out in a rather odd way.
  I submit that we must trust the local authorities in this matter. The whole scheme of this Bill involves local authorities taking over the care of large numbers of children; taking over the parental rights, probably in the case of very many. In this Bill we are doing everything we can to ensure that the set-up of local authorities dealing with this is a good one, and that the local authorities act under suitable supervision. I would remind the House that under Clause 42 local authorities, in all their work under this Bill, act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State. I should have thought it was more appropriate, in those circumstances, that when a local authority has parental rights it should be treated as though it were a parent, and should not be subject to interference—even by a court.
  Of course, we all recognise the authority of the court and the value of the work that it does in this sort of matter. The local authority should be free from interference even by a court at the instance of an outsider who is neither a parent nor guardian and has no rights in respect of the child. I do not think that there is any danger involved in this matter. The local authorities are subject to very considerable checks, and although it was

  1855
  said that this was not a question of trusting local authorities, I think that that issue is involved to some extent by this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Duty of local authority to act as fit person under the Children and Young Persons Acts.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out from beginning, to "of," in line 14, and to insert:
  "assent of a local authority shall not be required for the making by the court of an order committing him to the care of the authority unless a probation order or supervision order is in force or the court proposes to make such an order at the same time as the order committing the child to the care."
  This Clause empowers a court at their discretion to commit a child or young person to the care of a local authority as a fit person. This Amendment provides that where a probation or supervision order is in force, or where the court intend to make such an order, the court will not be empowered to commit the child to a local authority as a fit person unless with the consent of the authority. This is a matter which we discussed at some length during Committee stage and my right hon. Friend undertook to consider it. The argument was put forward from both sides that without this form of Amendment there was a danger of duplication of supervision. My right hon. Friend hopes that the Amendment will go most of the way towards meeting the criticisms which were put forward.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I am sure that this Amendment will be very acceptable to local authorities who saw a difficulty in having a child under dual control. It will simplify the matter very considerably, and to that end meets the objections which were made during the Committee stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 25, after "that," insert:
  "where a probation order or supervision order is in force as respects a child or young person, or the court proposes to make such an order at the same time as an order for committal to the care of the local authority, the last-mentioned order shall not be made unless the local authority consent to the making thereof.
  1856
  (1A) Before making an order under the last foregoing subsection in any case where the consent of the local authority is not required."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 13.—(Mode of provision of accommodation and maintenance.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, at the end, to insert:
  The approval by the Secretary of State of any premises for the purposes of this subsection shall have effect for such period as he may from time to time determine, but—

  (a) the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his approval notwithstanding that the period for which it was given has not expired,

  (b) the Secretary of State shall not give or continue his approval for the purposes of this subsection unless he is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is not for the time being available.

  Some disquiet was shown about the question of the approval the Secretary of State was authorised to give to accommodation of children under three in premises provided under the National Assistance Act which are now used solely for nursery purposes. This Amendment seeks to meet the apprehensions which were expressed, and lays down that the Secretary of State shall not approve the use of such premises, or continue his approval, unless he is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is not available for the time being.
  Commander Galbraith: We are very glad indeed that this Amendment has been put down together with the following Amendment. They meet the point of view we expressed during the Committee stage.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I, too, should like to express our thanks for this Amendment, and especially for the following Amendment in which I am more keenly interested. There is one thing still remaining, and that is the lack of continuity in the care of the child. If the child is under three it is treated as one child, and if it is over three as another child. I hope that as soon as possible we shall have continuity of treatment throughout the child's life.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from "may," to the end of line 18.
  This Amendment and the following Amendment relate to accommodation for

  1857
  children aged three or over in premises provided under the National Assistance Act. The Secretary of State is empowered to approve an extension of the period of 14 days, and it was suggested in Committee that he should not give his approval for any great length of time at one time, but that the matter should come up automatically for review every so often. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that children shall not be left for an unduly long period of time purely due to inertia. As in the case of the previous Amendment, we hope that this provision will be only for a temporary period, and I can give that assurance to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay).
  Sir T. Moore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having gone so far in meeting the argument we put forward during the Committee stage, but I rather think that the Amendments have not gone quite far enough. I should like to see inserted after the word "periods" in line 21 such words as "if convinced that no other suitable accommodation is available." That imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State not to renew his authority unless satisfied that no other suitable accommodation is available. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that people will be rather anxious and worried, not in regard to his interpretation of his responsibilities, but in regard to the interpretation of others who may follow him. I hope we can have some assurance that something will be done to make certain the period is not renewed unless the Secretary of State is fully satisfied that no alternative accommodation is available.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 21, at end, insert:
  Provided that a child shall not be accommodated and maintained as mentioned in this subsection for any period exceeding fourteen days except with the consent of the Secretary of State; and—

  (a) the Secretary of State shall not give his consent for the purposes of this subsection for a period exceeding eight weeks, but may renew any such consent for a further such period or periods;

  (b)the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his consent given for the purposes of this subsection notwithstanding that the period for which it was given or renewed has not expired.—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 14.—(Regulations as to boarding-out.)
  Mr. Hollis: I beg to move, in page 11, line 32, after "welfare," to insert: "or proper religious upbringing."
  There has been general concern during the passage of this Bill that appropriate regard should be paid to the religious welfare of the children, and that concern has been generally and satisfactorily met by the Government. We have already had evidence of that today. This Amendment is simply moved with the desire to make assurance doubly sure. By Subsection (2, a) regulations may provide for securing that where possible, the person with whom any child is to be boarded out is either of the same religious persuasion as the child, or gives an undertaking that the child will be brought up in that religious persuasion. On the other hand, however, nothing is clearly laid down as to what will happen, what the punishment will be, if that undertaking is not properly carried out.
  To make assurance doubly sure we think it would be as well to have the words of the Amendment in the Bill, so that there could not possibly be any dispute in the courts as to whether proper religious upbringing was included in welfare. We do not want to be too particular, but in these matters of religion it is as well that we should try to make the law as rigid as possible. I am reminded of a negro in Alabama who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: "Sure, boss, I've seen it done." That was a reasonable answer, and so we should like to see this matter laid down clearly in the Bill. It would disadvantage nobody, and might save unpleasant differences of opinion or litigation in future.
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I cannot see that there is any objection to these words, and I should be glad to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about them.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) used words to show that he recognises that a good deal has been done in this Bill, since it was first introduced in another place, to give all the assurances which religious communities might wish. He said he wished to make assurance doubly sure, and I hope I can give him an assurance which will satisfy him, although I also hope he will not ask us to put

  1859
  any further qualification into the Bill itself. Provision has already been made in Clause 14 for regulations requiring a local authority to board children out with persons of the same religion if possible or at any rate with those who give an undertaking that the child will be brought up suitably in the religion to which he belongs. This is a provision which exists in the 1933 Act and which according to my information, has worked quite satisfactorily. We have heard no complaints or suggestions that any further addition to that was necessary.
  Earlier, in another place and in Standing Committee, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend that it will be suggested to local authorities in a circular sent, they should, where practicable, consult with the appropriate authority about the child's religious persuasion before boarding him out with somebody who is not of the same religious persuasion. It is further proposed to urge them to secure the help and co-operation of the churches and religious communities in finding suitable foster homes. I think that that goes as far as we can reasonably go in giving the necessary assurance. We must not too greatly restrict the places where a local authority might place a child because facilities are sometimes very limited. In this matter we are not dealing solely with the great churches, but also with religious sects and communities which are only sparsely represented in this country. If we placed undue insistence on the words of the Amendment, it might sometimes put local authorities into considerable difficulty in placing a child.
  Mr. Hollis: I fully appreciate the spirit of the Government's intentions in this matter, but I would point out that the Amendment is not concerned with the question of placing a child but with withdrawal, should it turn out that the home is not satisfactory. The Clause provides that there shall be regulations as to where children are to be boarded out. I should be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman assured me that the word "securing" in paragraph (d) is sufficiently strong to enable local authorities to withdraw children where their home had appeared to be satisfactory from the religious point of view but subsequently turned out to be unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Younger: I think I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on that point. The provisions of paragraph (c) show that the question of religious upbringing is regarded as a matter of importance in the upbringing of the child. I think the word "securing" in paragraph (d) would give the necessary powers, and that the general word "welfare" would be taken to include the spiritual and moral welfare of the child, as well as merely its physical welfare. There is no doubt that power would exist under the proposed regulations.
  Mr. Hollis: I should like to thank the Under-Secretary for what he has said, and to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Duly of local authorities to provide homes.)
  Amendments made: In page 12, line 39, leave out "classes," and insert "descriptions."
  In line 40, leave out "classes" and insert "descriptions."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 17.—(Power of local authorities to arrange for emigration of children.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 13, line 22, after the first "child," to insert:
  "and that suitable arrangements have been or will be made for the child's reception and welfare in the country to which he is going."
  This Amendment empowers a local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to procure, or assist in procuring, the emigration of children in their care, and the Secretary of State has to be satisfied, among other things, that the emigration would benefit the children. An Amendment was moved in Committee to provide that the Secretary of State should also be satisfied that the conditions of the reception of the children and arrangements for their welfare were suitable. My right hon. Friend has thought this matter over, and while he is still doubtful whether the words of the Amendment are strictly necessary, he feels that they would give the assurance which Members desired in Committee and would have no disadvantageous consequences.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I welcome this Amendment because this is an important matter. How will the Minister satisfy himself that the conditions are suitable?

  1861
  During the last 30 years associations engaged in child emigration have had a wealth of experience, which they have put at the disposal of the Home Office. I have in mind the case of a voluntary association taking children for the purpose of settling them on the land. Out of 1,080 children taken during that 30 years period only one was placed as a settler. The explanations of that may be varied. Out of the children that were taken for emigration purposes a high percentage were mentally defective, while of the others who were sent a large number were used in the country to which they emigrated as cheap labour, because there was no particular opening for them in their own class in those countries.
  4.30 p.m.
  The important matters in mass emigration are, first of all, the right selection of suitable children and not sending mentally defective children; and, secondly, to see that the children when sent abroad, are given suitable opportunities. I am glad to see that this Amendment has been moved, but what is far more important than putting an Amendment into the Bill is to know something about the machinery by which the Bill works. The time has come to inquire into the emigration system on the lines of the Curtis Committee inquiry in this country, namely, by setting up an authoritative committee to inquire into the conditions and the facts as well as the experiences during the past 30 years, so that through that report the right hon. Gentleman can implement this Clause.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting this Amendment. The words are of great importance. The whole essence of emigation is the after-care that is given. These words mean something. As to the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), that is something which took place some years ago, because at this moment there is very little emigration of this sort going on at all. I am very glad that the Dominions are not now acquiring what were Poor Law children, and I hope that that kind of thing will die a natural death. This is a reasonable precaution.
  Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for what he has said. It
  1862
  is our intention to ensure that there shall be effective after-care for these children when they have landed. One of the causes that will operate against the reappearance of the type of things to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has alluded, is the fact that the receiving countries are a great deal more discriminating now than they were at the time when the kind of thing he mentions was being carried on. That does not absolve us from first of all ensuring that we send suitable children and children who have some wish to go; also that in the Dominion or other place to which they are sent there are adequate after-care arrangements, so that where necessary they will be given help and guidance; and, if it should appear that they are being imposed upon by someone on the other side of the ocean, that they will have a friend who will be able to see that they receive proper treatment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 13, line 24, to leave out from "consents," to the end of line 25, and to insert:
  "Provided that where a child is too young to form or express a proper opinion on the matter, the Secretary of State may consent to his emigration notwithstanding that the child is unable to consent thereto in any case where the child is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend."
  This Amendment is moved to meet certain fears that were expressed about the power of the Secretary of State to consent to the emigration of a child if the child is considered too young to give a valid consent that means something. The purpose of the Amendment is to cut down somewhat the power of the Secretary of State in that regard, and he will be able to give his consent only if the child is accompanied by a parent, guardian or relative or if the child is going to join a parent, guardian, relative or friends after emigration. In other circumstances the Secretary of State will not be able to give consent to any emigration of a child too young to give his own consent. These two qualifications in the Amendment will practically cover the cases where it might be desirable to let a child go abroad, even if it were too small to make up its own mind in the matter.
  Commander Gailbraith: We understood on the Committee stage that the cases referred to in the Amendment were really the only ones that were at issue, and that it was for that purpose that the words in the original Clause were inserted. I am very glad indeed that this Amendment has been brought forward. It is right and proper that this safeguard should be provided, and I am very agreeable to the Amendment being made.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for this Amendment which will satisfy those of us on this side who objected to the Clause in its original form. This Amendment removes any ambiguity and protects the child.
  Mr. Hollis: I do not ask the question in any hostility, but in curiosity, when I request the hon. Gentleman to give us a definition of "too young."
  Mr. Younger: I do not think it is a matter which could be defined. It is a principle which varies when it is applied to different things. One would have to judge from the circumstances of the particular case and then come to a conclusion whether or not the child knew what it was to which he was giving his consent.
  Mr. Hollis: There is no legal explanation?
  Mr. Ede: One would have to take into account all the circumstances of the particular child. We are anxious not to put words into the Bill that would compel us to break up a family. The case we have in mind is where there are a number of children in a family and one of them is so young that it could not be expected to express an opinion, but it would be very wrong to send the other children of the family abroad and leave this one behind. It was, therefore, the aim of trying to include the youngest child of a family rather than to exclude children which animated us in drawing up this definition. The hon. Member will agree that if they are looked at from that point of view, the words in the Amendment are appropriate to the purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 18.—(Burial or cremation of deceased children.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38 to leave out from "recover," to the end of line 39, and to insert:
  1864
  "from any parent of the child any expenses incurred by them under the said subsection (1) and not reimbursed under subsection (5) of section twenty-two of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which enables payments to be made to local authorities out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the cost of burial of cremation of certain persons)."
  These words are to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). The Clause enables the local authority to recover from the parent the expenses for a child in its care when it undertakes the burial of the child, but this Amendment provides that it should not be able to recover those expenses from the parent if it has already been reimbursed out of the National Insurance Fund.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Provision of hostels for persons under 21.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 14, line 18, to leave out from the beginning to "a," in line 19.
  This Amendment must be read in connection with the next Amendment on the Paper, to line 30. Both relate to the Secretary of State's power to make regulations as to the conduct of hostels. My right hon. Friend undertook in Committee to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations on this subject. This is a matter upon which local authorities feel very strongly, and I hope they will be satisfied with these Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 30, leave out Subsection (3).—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 29.—(Registration of voluntary homes.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 20, line 13, after "made," to insert "or directions given."
  This Amendment anticipates four Amendments standing on the Paper to Clause 31. In Committee it was urged that the Secretary of State should take power to make regulations for certain additional purposes The Amendments to Clause 31 are intended to carry out the wishes then expressed in Committee. They involve the making of directions for purposes in pursuance of the regulations.

  1865
  It is for that purpose that this purely drafting Amendment is now moved.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Regulations as to conduct of voluntary homes.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 22, line 28, to leave out "and," and to insert:
  "authorise the Secretary of State to give directions prohibiting the provision for the children in any home of clothing of any description specified in the directions, and impose requirements."
  This Amendment and the next three Amendments on the Paper relate to the same matter. They are:
  In page 22, line 30, at end, insert:
  "(b) require the furnishing to the Secretary of State of information as to the facilities provided for the parents and guardians of children in the homes to visit and communicate with the children, and authorise the Secretary of State to give directions as to the provision of such facilities;"
  In line 31, leave out "limit," and insert "give directions limiting."
  In line 33, at end, insert:
  "(c) provide for consultation with the Secretary of State as to applicants for appointment to the charge of a home and empower the Secretary of State to prohibit the appointment of any particular applicant therefor except in the cases (if any) in which the regulations dispense with such consultation by reason that the person to be appointed possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations."
  These Amendments relate to the regulations for the conduct of voluntary homes. The Amendments would empower the Secretary of State by regulation to give directions where children are unsuitably clothed—that is the intention of the first Amendment—and, in the second Amendment, in line 30, to require information as to the facilities granted to parents or guardians who visit and communicate with their children and to give directions as to those facilities. The fourth Amendment, in line 33, would enable my right hon. Friend to make regulations to require consultation as to the persons to be appointed to the charge of a voluntary home. The third Amendment in line 31 is simply an Amendment consequential upon the other three.
  Commander Galbraith: I am in agreement upon the first, second and third of these Amendments, but I have doubts of the advisability of making the Amendment to line 33. It seems that the Secretary of State proposes to take power to deal with
  1866
  the appointment of persons to the charge of a voluntary home. I agree that it is quite a proper power for him to have in respect of a local authority home. Indeed, he has already taken that power in Clause 15, (4, d). Now he proposes to extend it to the voluntary homes. It is proper for him to have this power in connection with local authority homes because 50 per cent. of the cost of running those homes is borne by the Treasury and the other 50 per cent. by the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman is providing nothing for the upkeep of voluntary homes. Further, it seems to me that the large voluntary homes have very great experience in connection with these appointments, and as to the type of person they require and who best performs the necessary duties. Therefore, they should be left with their own independence of choice.
  If it should be that, following an initial inspection, it is found that something is lacking in or is wrong with the management of a particular home, no doubt representations could, be made to the right hon. Gentleman which he would forward to the home in question, as a result of which the person who was regarded as unsatisfactory might be removed. I do not see that there is any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should take these wider powers. I should like to have some explanation of what this Amendment in line 33 means. While it gives the right hon. Gentleman authority to prohibit the appointment of a particular applicant, it goes on to say:
  "except in the cases (if any) in which the regulations dispense with such consultation by reason that the person to be appointed possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations."
  This question of qualifications is not altogether a good rule to go by. There may be people who have not any qualifications at all, so far as the right hon. Gentleman may know, but who may be the most suitable persons to manage a particular home. With their wealth of experience I should think that the great voluntary organisations would be quite capable of deciding whether persons were qualified or otherwise to perform these functions. I am not satisfied with this Amendment and I hope that we may have some further explanation of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again before he presses the Amendment on the House.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for these Amendments. We shall secure by them that the children in voluntary homes will be under proper supervision, like children in local authority homes. All these Amendments, including the last, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) objected, are important. Other hon. Members may speak about clothing. I want to refer to the rights of the parents, and to this very important Amendment relating to staffing and persons who are in charge of the homes.
  There is a wealth of evidence in the Curtis Committee's Report to justify what the Home Secretary is doing. These Amendments do not imply general criticism of people who are in charge of voluntary homes. It means that the person in charge of a home is probably the most important person who can influence life in the home. It is too much to allow complete freedom in these appointments, especially in view of the new power of the local authorities and of the Secretary of State to assist voluntary homes financially. The Amendments are a very reasonable precaution, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hollis: I join strongly with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in begging the Home Secretary to look again at the fourth of these Amendments. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) that the mere putting down of these words does not of itself constitute a general criticism of the voluntary homes, and of everything that they do. We are not arguing that nothing should be done and that the Home Secretary should take no powers in the matter. We are simply asking him to look again at those particular words.
  The great danger is that, at worst, there might be a difference of opinion between the Home Office and one of the great voluntary homes about somebody whom the home wished to appoint and the Home Secretary would not allow them to appoint. That would be a calamity and a very great danger, unless we have regulations a great deal fairer and less bureaucratic. I am by no means happy about
  1868
  the words in the last line of the Amendment:
  "possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations."
  I very much doubt whether anybody who has studied the history of an institution like Dr. Barnardo's Homes could fail to come to the conclusion that this kind of enterprise is perfectly capable of deciding upon the right kind of man, and of laying down objectively the most desirable qualifications needed in persons who carry out this work. The mentality which thinks that we can settle who is a desirable person by some test or objective qualifications is a dangerous one. While I join with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities in welcoming the three other Amendments and agreeing that something ought to be done about the voluntary homes, I also join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok in begging the Home Secretary to look at the wording of this Amendment again.
  Sir T. Moore: While I share to some extent the doubts and concern of my hon. Friends, one must remember that we are not dealing entirely with Dr. Barnardo's Homes or the other great voluntary societies for whom we all have such respect and admiration. There are small voluntary homes in whose cases it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State shall, if he so desires, step in and lay down certain regulations by which they shall be immediately controlled. I agree that it is most desirable that the great societies should have not only the right to control their own affairs but the knowledge that they have that right, but in view of the numerous cases brought to our notice during the last couple of years where children have suffered very grieviously, both physically and mentally, through the deliberate cruelty—perhaps "neglect" would be a more appropriate word—of those in charge of the homes, I must, on balance, support the Home Secretary's Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has stated very clearly the reason we ask for the Amendments in this form. I am certain that there will be no conflict between the Home Office and the big organisations with regard to these appointments. The relationships between us are so cordial

  1869
  that I am quite sure that consultation in those cases will be mutually advantageous. However, there are single homes, sometimes conducted with the best possible motives but under a management committee which is quite unskilled and unused to the making of this type of appointment. We must have regard to the interests of the children in those homes. It is, therefore, desirable for us to have this power. It was pressed upon us very strongly in Committee. We did not rush into undertaking this liability. We resisted it until it was quite clear that we really had no answer in the bad cases. We proposed to have this power so that in those cases where an unsuitable person is going to be appointed, we shall be able to take steps to prevent the appointment in the interests of the children.
  It is to be hoped that with the training schemes which we have, and I am glad to say the co-operation we are receiving from universities and other training bodies, we shall be able in the course of a few years to establish a series of qualifications to which we shall be able to attach such importance that an appointment may be made outside the regulations. I hope that before we reach that stage we shall be able also to make some practical test the basis of the qualifications being recognised.
  I appeal to the House, in the interests of the children in the small home, with its single body of management, to give us the powers we ask. I can assure the House that there is no question of our getting into conflict with the big organisations; I have no doubt on occasions we may be able to suggest to some of the small homes that they would be well advised to make a selection for their appointments from their staffs. This Amendment will enable us to safeguard the interests of some children who in the past have sometimes suffered neglect for a number of years because the appointment was not so bad as to become a scandal, although it was not so good as to be justified in the interests of the inmates of the home.
  Commander Galbraith: Will the Home Secretary tell us whether the reason for putting in the words:
  "except in the cases (it any) in which the regulations dispense with such consultation"
  is that he has in mind that he might dispense with it in the case of some of the
  1870
  largest, best known and oldest of these organisations?
  Mr. Ede: I think that at this stage I ought not to do that, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I do not anticipate any difficulty with the big homes, with the comparatively large numbers in their service from whom they can make selections.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 30, at end, insert:
  "(b) require the furnishing to the Secretary of State of information as to the facilities provided for the parents and guardians of children in the homes to visit and communicate with the children, and authorise the Secretary of State to give directions as to the provision of such facilities."
  In line 31, leave out "limit," and insert "give directions limiting."
  In line 33, at end, insert:
  "(c) provide for consultation with the Secretary of State as to applicants for appointment to the charge of a home and empower the Secretary of State to prohibit the appointment of any particular applicant therefor except in the cases (if any) in which the regulations dispense with such consultation by reason that the person to be appointed possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the regulations."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Consequential Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions where particulars to be sent of voluntary homes are varied.)
  Amendment made: in page 23, line 19, leave out "the said paragraph," and insert:
  "paragraph (a) of this subsection."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 33.—(Powers of Secretary of State as to voluntary organisations.)
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, at the end, to insert:
  "and for enabling the Secretary of State to be satisfied that suitable arrangements have been or will be made for the children's reception and welfare in the country to which they are going."
  This manuscript Amendment varies, perhaps rather importantly, the words in the Amendment which I had on the Order Paper. I was informed that the Government would be prepared to accept this wording, which is more flexible. I do not know whether that is so, but I heard a whisper that it might be a better form of words. If that is so, I am

  1871
  delighted to move it, because it is on all fours with the arrangements for children under local authorities.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I have pleasure in repeating in a firm and clear voice the whisper which reached the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 4, leave out "if the regulations so provide," and insert:
  "where it is so provided by or under the regulations."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 37.—(Miscellaneous amendments of Child Life Protection provisions.)
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 25, line 43, to leave out from the beginning, to the second "the," in line 45.
  This Amendment goes with a later one and merely transfers the definition of the word "relative" to the interpretation Clause. The word has to be defined for the purposes of two Clauses instead of only for this one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 26, leave out lines 32 and 33, and insert:
  "by a voluntary organisation or in relation to any arrangements in which the Minister of Pensions participates."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 40—(Modification, in certain cases, of requirements of last foregoing Section.)
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marshall.
  Mr. Lindsay: Are you not calling my Amendment, Mr. Speaker, to Clause 39, in page 27, line 18, after "IV," insert:
  "except in section eighty relating to the provision of approved schools."?
  Mr. Speaker: No.
  Mr. Lindsay: Oh, what a pity.
  Mr. Ede: That was a bit more than a whisper.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I beg to move in page 28, line 38, to leave out "owing to special circumstances."
  1872
  This Amendment, and the Amendment to line 39, to leave out "better," and insert "no less efficiently," again return to the attack about the setting up of separate committees. The Curtis Committee reported that there should be a separate committee set up to deal with the deprived children and on page 144, paragraph 439, it says:
  "We have had evidence that many county councils and county borough councils share our view that a single committee should be responsible and are moving in that direction. They are also to some extent tending to remove the care of these children from the sphere of public assistance."
  It is obvious there that the Curtis Committee had in mind a single committee as distinct from the two committees which have been handling these children up to now, that is, the Poor Law committee and the education committee. When the Curtis Committee used the words "single committee," they did not specify that it should be a special committee, but only one committee and not two and, therefore, I think what was in their mind was that it should not be split up between two authorities.
  My great concern here is that there are local authorities who have been recognising for some time their definite duties in regard to the care of children. I know, and other hon. Members know, of many authorities who have for quite a long time been caring for these deprived children under the aegis of one committee and not two; that is to say, the education committees have been carrying out practically all the functions of seeing that these deprived children have proper care and attention. Indeed, to a large extent, such local authorities have already set up under the education committee able sub-committees to which are delegated all the powers which will now be directed to the local authorities under this Bill. In many cases it will be derogatory from the welfare of the children if a separate committee has to be set up. It might not occupy an important place on the council, or in the reports of the council, and it is important to see that this work should not be minimised but magnified, and a proper place given to it in the work of the authority.
  In my view, a small special committee will not be regarded as important, and so it will not get all the attention it should have. I know the Home Secretary said

  1873
  that there are not a large number of authorities who have such committees working, but it would be wrong to penalise a good authority, who have already set up all the necessary machinery, by taking away the work they are now doing and making them set up an entirely new committee. A great deal of the work will be duplicated, and that should be avoided. If the good authorities can satisfy the Home Secretary that they can carry on the work by a sub-committee of the education committee, I hope they will be allowed to do so, because to insist on a change in such circumstances savours of dictatorship. It does not affect the position of the children's officer because this Bill provides that there shall be a separate children's officer, and that is a safeguard to the Secretary of State that the work which he desires to be done under this Bill will be done by that sub-committee of the local authority under the direction of the children's officer.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It is difficult to know what to say about this Amendment—
  Mr. Mack: Do not say it.
  Mr. Lindsay: We have had it all out several times, and I do not know whether the Home Secretary is inclined to give way this afternoon. He is in a pretty generous mood and I am sorry that the hon. Members for York (Mr. Corlett) and North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) are away because they would bring great force to bear. However, I see that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) is here, and I have no doubt that he will support us. The fact of the matter is that upstairs a similar Amendment secured 11 votes against 16, and if all hon. Members on this side of the House had been in their places, and if hon. Members on the other side had been in their places, the Amendment would have been won—but, of course, it was not quite the same Amendment.
  The fact is, it is quite impossible to discuss separately this Amendment and my Amendment which was not called, because they are both part of a general outlook on this question. It is an outlook which the Home Secretary enjoyed for many years of his life. When he was on the
  1874
  Surrey County Council he took a different view, or would have taken a different view—
  Mr. Ede: I am still on the Surrey County Council.
  Mr. Lindsay: It is difficult to take a strong view as a local authority member when the right hon. Gentleman is in his present high office, but there is no reason why he should not remember the views he held then. This battle was lost the day the Curtis Committee was appointed. It was lost because, as everybody is now agreed, the bias of the Bill is due to a lack of balance on the educational side in the personnel of the Curtis Committee. There is no question about that. I have been through their names carefully in order to see what were their qualifications.
  My second point is that in the Cabinet, or wherever these questions are decided, the battle was lost again. I know that the Minister of Education, who I am very glad to see sitting beside the Home Secretary, would wish it otherwise. He is a strong local education authority man. This Bill is a local authority Bill, not a local education authority Bill. These neat little words of our Amendment make all the difference to this Clause, called the escape clause, like propositions in the Greek Testament, between Heaven and Hell. They make the difference to these children coming under a new set of officers when they are already being well looked after by existing officers.
  I was brought up to believe that it is a bad thing to destroy anything which is good and growing. It is not the task of a radical reformer to do that. Here we have 2,228 children in 31 schools under 24 local education authorities—that is, the approved school side. There are other bodies, like the London and Surrey County Education Committees who are doing a perfectly good job. Why upset it all? For administrative tidiness? Upstairs during Committee stage, talking of approved schools, the Home Secretary used these astonishing words:
  "In so far as it is education in the school sense, clearly the education officer will be the person whose advice is sought if there is any difficulty; but on the other side of the work, it is very desirable that the committee which deals with the out-of-school life of other children shall also have responsibility for the out-of-school life of these children.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 10th June, 1948; c. 190.]

  1875
  In the following week the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Education presented a report entitled "Out of School," urging education authorities to set up out-of-school committees, with representation of voluntary bodies on them, to give grants in aid to voluntary bodies serving out-of-school interests. This report says that
  "it is impossible to draw the line of demarcation at four o'clock, six o'clock, or at any other time and to say that at that point in the day a child's education ends."
  This most recent report contradicts in specific words the speech upstairs by the Home Secretary.
  I will not go into the further points because we have had them before. During the Committee stage the Home Secretary was very reasonable on one point: he said this was a matter for a three years' experiment. We do not yet know how it will end. This Bill is very much of a transitional measure. It may well seem to the Home Secretary of the day in 1951 that it is wiser on balance to leave these matters, which affect the child in every aspect, with the education committee. Why not allow these local authorities, who are already doing good work, to continue? In the other cases, why not try the children's committee and see if they can do better? Would not that spirit of rivalry be a very good thing?
  There are four separate Ministries now dealing with the life of a child—Education, Health, and Labour and the Home Office.
  Mr. Charles Williams: Which is worst?
  Mr. Lindsay: I wonder. I should not think the Ministry of Education is worse than the others. Why divide up the poor little innocent child into four parts? Why take 120,000 of five million children in the country and deal with one aspect of those 120,000, which is called home giving? Why create 140 new officers, who will probably require assistance before long? I repeat what I have said before: that there will be created something almost of a vested interest in the deprived child. These authorities who did their job before the war—with no legal obligation—did it because they wanted to look after the children in a wider setting; they did so voluntarily. If the Home
  1876
  Secretary allows them to continue to do the good work he will meet with a very practical response from educationists and local education authorities all over the country.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) quoted the opening sentences of paragraph 439 of the Curtis Report. It is a pity that his reading of the Report ended there, because the opening sentences of paragraph 440 deal with the summing up of the argument, of which the sentences he read form only a part. The opening sentence of paragraph 440 reads,
  "After carefully considering these arguments we favour the establishment of an ad hoc committee reporting direct to the council."
  On page 178 the 14th recommendation States,
  "Where the county or county borough council is the responsible authority it should work through a single ad hoc committee …"
  That is the recommendation which we have accepted and it is on the balance of the argument summarised in paragraph 440 that we have reached that conclusion.
  It has been urged against me that I may be somewhat inconsistent with some things I may have said or done in the past. I am like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill): I am not slavishly bound to anything merely because I might be inconsistent if I changed my views when I heard a better argument. I am not aware that I have, in fact, ever expressed views which indicated that the education committee was the appropriate body for this purpose. The nearest I got to it was when I attempted to amalgamate the work of the public assistance committee and the education committee, where I stood very strongly for bringing all the children, in the circumstances then existing under the education committee.
  We are told by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) that these children are only 120,000 out of 5,000,000. That is precisely why it is necessary to ensure that they shall receive special and separate consideration. These deprived children, as the Curtis Report shows, have been something worse than the Cinderellas of the child population of the country. I wanted to have for the three experimental years a separate committee to deal with them,

  1877
  because I am certain that, if they are relegated to the position of being cared for by a sub-committee of a big committee dealing with children in the same proportions as the figures of the hon. Member, they will never get that careful attention which it was the clear desire of the Curtis Committee, and of the country following the publication of the Curtis Report, that they should receive.
  It is quite wrong to think that the local authorities are by any means unanimous in supporting the view expressed in this Amendment. Some 60 local authorities, in anticipation of the passing of this Measure, have already appointed separate children's committees. Such important areas as Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester and, among the counties, Kent and Middlesex, have accepted the view of the Curtis Committee that an ad hoc committee is the appropriate body to deal with this matter. I want to place the responsibility as fairly and squarely as I can on the shoulders of the authority. In committee upstairs hon. Members used the words "local education authority" when it was quite clear that they meant the "local education committee."
  If this work is delegated to a sub-committee of the education committee, the contact with the local education authority will be too remote for us to feel that the great amount of work that the Curtis Committee showed had to be done will be properly undertaken and understood by the authority itself. If we have a separate committee reporting direct to the authority it is certain that the authority will be a great deal better informed about the work that is being done than if it is a sub-committee of one of the committees of the authority. I do not want to see at the fag end of some education committee's report, "We have received the report of our children's sub-committee, and have given the necessary instructions thereon." I want there to be in the council, whether it be a county council or county borough council, a spokesman as chairman of this committee who will have to present his case for the improvements he wants, who will have to defend any shortcomings, and who will be able there and then to shoulder full responsibility.
  This is something more than a piece of local administrative machinery. This is
  1878
  the test as to what this House feels as to the importance of these 120,000 children in the life of the nation. They are the children who have been deprived of a normal home life. They are in many ways the most defenceless of all our population. They have no one to stand up for them. It is therefore very desirable that we should make quite certain that following on the publication of the Curtis Committee Report and this early implementation of it in legislation their defenceless position is recognised and that they should be given a place in the scheme of local and national administration which indicates how strong our feeling is that they must receive prompt, energetic, and personal attention. The hon. Member for Combined English Universities went into mathematics on the problem, and said that in this I only carried the Committee upstairs with me by 16 to 11. That was on the other Amendment which was similar to the Amendment which Mr. Speaker did not call. It is true that we had a strong Debate in which Members on both sides of the Committee adopted different views. It was a complete nonparty discussion. I was careful not to introduce a party atmosphere this afternoon. We had a strong discussion and at the end the Amendments were withdrawn.
  I hope this afternoon that the House will feel that while there is much to be said for these Amendments—and if all local authorities were good authorities one might be prepared to accept these words—local authorities do differ—although I know some local authority publication editors do not like me saying it—in their efficiency and the importance they attach to this type of work. I shall never forget when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education going round trying to persuade local education authorities to start school meals. I went into the offices of one very important county education committee and was told, "If there is any child in this county who wants a school meal, let his parents apply to the Public Assistance Committee." I am not prepared to leave to local authorities and local education authorities with that mentality the responsibility for dealing with deprived children.
  It is because we want to make it quite clear to all concerned that these children are of the utmost importance to the

  1879
  nation, and that their upbringing is of the utmost importance, that I ask the House to maintain the Bill in its present form and to reject these Amendments. I am certain that if we do that we shall ensure for all these children a far better opportunity, and for some of them an exceedingly better opportunity than if we adopt the Amendments. I have nothing but praise for the work that most local education authorities do in their capacity as education authorities, but I feel that in this matter, after the revelations of the Curtis Committee's Report and their strong recommendations after their investigations, that we should be well advised to adhere to the Clause as printed in the Bill.
  Commander Galbraith: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not introduce a party atmosphere, because if he had done so he would have placed me in a very difficult and unfortunate position, as it so happens that in regard to these Amendments I find myself on his side. I believe the weight of argument he has brought forward in defending the Bill as it stands is altogether overwhelming, but I feel the House ought to be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) and to the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for having brought this matter before the House for discussion. It is a matter of administration and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has great experience in these matters. It is right that he should have made his feelings known to the House. However, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the stand he has taken, because I believe that these children desire to be represented by a committee which is not representing anyone else.
  Mr. C. Williams: I am not quite as pleased with the attitude of the Home Secretary as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). In his opening remarks the right hon. Gentleman repudiated a good many of the things said about him by the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and then proceeded to quote a report. I have no doubt he quoted efficiently for his own purposes. Having quoted the report, he proceeded to
  1880
  give himself yet another coat of whitewash in addition to the many he has already given himself. I was not quite persuaded by the balance of his arguments. Everyone will agree, that in all probability, having a direct committee of the county council is the best way of dealing with these matters. There is no difference of opinion in the House that the 120,000 children whom we are discussing should undoubtedly have the very highest and best attention, and that it should be made quite clear to all local authorities that they should have a special direction and a special committee.
  5.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is of the opinion that the four Ministers in charge of this Bill are all bad; he is steadily improving his knowledge of this world, but I should not like to intervene in that particular trouble. While there may be under certain circumstances already a body which can deal with it, that body should not be outside the provisions which this Amendment would cover. It would be a pity if, in these circumstances, there is an existing body which is really good, keen, and hard-working, it should not be possible to make an exception in the way suggested.
  There is an almost overwhelming argument in favour of that being possible under certain circumstances which can and will be checked by the other part of this Clause, although I am uncertain about the position in Scotland. We have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary about this matter and we all appreciate the trouble and the work which he has put into it, but I wish to know a little more from the educational point of view. We have heard a good deal from the Home Secretary's point of view but we are here dealing primarily with children. I think it a great pity that in a matter of this sort, which the Home Secretary admits has been closely discussed, with many arguments advanced on both sides, we have heard nothing whatever from the educational point of view to help us to make up our minds. Those of us who want to see the best done for the children—and I see a considerable number of people on this side of the House who are deeply interested in education and possibly one or two on the other side—want every

  1881
  form of information. We are evidently not to be allowed to hear the Minister of Education express his views on this matter. We ought to know that side as well as the sometimes hard Home Office point of view.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 41.—(The children's officer.)
  Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 30, line 8, to leave out "officer," and to insert "friend."
  It will be obvious that the seven following Amendments in similar terms, which also stand in my name, spring from the same origin, and with permission I will deal with them together. It will probably be argued that I am breaking with tradition or precedent in proposing this Amendment, although I cannot imagine such an argument being used by His Majesty's present Government or by the right hon. Gentleman who is such a distinguished member of it. What is this tradition, what are these precedents, with the breaking of which I might be charged? They are not very elderly; so far as local authorities are concerned they are a few years old. We have the school attendance officer, the public assistance officer and the like. This word "officer" does not connote, to children at any rate, any particularly pleasant relationship. For instance, the police officer, despite many admirable and likeable qualities, frequently has to warn children against doing something which they want to do. The Army officer implies discipline. Even the school attendance officer can, I imagine, scarcely have any particularly happy associations in a child's mind.
  I cannot feel that the children's officer termed as such can be any more successful. I would here say that I am merely expressing my own feelings in the matter; this is not a party view, so far as I know. This official, as I shall call him for the time being, is the most important person in the Bill except for the children and possibly the Home Secretary. He must have tolerance, tact and understanding coupled with firmness of character. Can the word "friend" not represent all those qualities as well as "officer"? A child, especially a deprived child, must have confidence in this official, must respect him and should, I suggest, like him. In my view the mere word "officer"
  1882
  creates a sort of psychological antagonism in a child's mind towards anyone bearing that name. As we are all united in wanting to make this Bill a success and want to give it a good send-off, surely we are all determined to omit no step that may facilitate its success? It is an experiment in a way, but it is an experiment that must succeed.
  Again let me ask the House to rid itself of any ideas binding us to precedent. Whether this official is called an officer or whether he is called a friend, his position will be the same—his salary, duties and his qualifications will be the same. Why put into the mind of the child the feeling that this official is someone who is authoritarian, detached, possibly austere, instead of being what I am submitting throughout this series of Amendments, a friend? Most children are very impressionable; deprived children are very sensitive; all children are subjective. When in the 19th century male parents were a beard to give them authority they were automatically called father, but the present day male parent has discarded the beard complex and has adopted, shall we say, the "face nudiste." By doing so he implies he is relying on friendship rather than authority. The same applies to the words "officer" and "friend." One implies distance, the other implies nearness. I would ask the Home Secretary which, in his opinion, is the more valuable for the purpose which this Bill has in view? If he answers that question truthfully, he will accept my Amendment.
  Sir William Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This is an ingenious suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). It is not a frivolous suggestion, it is one of real value. The name of "children's officer" will surely be abbreviated by local authorities, and on reams of official correspondence will appear as the letters "C.O." That will not make for closer and more intimate relationship. The children will call him the "C.O.", the chairman of the education authority will call him "the C.O." possibly the adjectival "C.O." That would be avoided by introducing this humane, unique and original designation which is proposed in this Amendment. I should have preferred to call this official the children's warden. But I am happy

  1883
  to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend which has a certain point.
  The word "officer" is repellent. It has a disciplinary association and is closely attached to that figure, so much feared by schoolchildren, the school attendance officer. It connotes the police officer. I feel that the word "friend" is more in keeping with the generous and kindly character of this piece of legislation. In a court martial we do not speak of the "prisoner's officer." We speak of the "prisoner's friend." That introduces, by that very word, a different relation from that which could be conveyed by the use of the more familiar disciplinary word which might alternatively, and with equal force, be applied. This is a very small matter, but the Home Secretary has made it clear that he brings to the Bill a cordial feeling of human sympathy and understanding, and if this alteration will emphasise that feeling and make the Bill seem less official in its approach to little children, then I hope that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and what I have ventured to say in support will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. and gallant Friend, although I have great sympathy with the heart and feeling behind the Amendment. It may be under a mistaken idea that he makes the suggestion. Actually the words, "children's officer" will but seldom appear anywhere in connection with the child itself. It is much more likely to be a question of "Miss Smith," and so on. I do not doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) had in mind a line from a very well-known children's hymn—
  Sir W. Darling: "There's a Friend—"
  Mr. Marshall:—and he wishes to bring Him a little nearer during the lifetime of the child. But I do not think it would be of any value to the child if this phraseology were adopted. In my opinion the Curtis Report already errs too much on the soft side. That is one of my objections to it. I do not think that the Amendment will mean anything at all to a child, because the children will not be in contact, we hope, in this
  1884
  fashion with the children's officer. Therefore I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment.
  Mr. Younger: We all know and appreciate the qualities of heart which have led the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move this Amendment, but I find myself in agreement with the conclusion, and with most of the argument, of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall). I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) will accuse me of being too closely tied to precedent. Ancient precedent in this matter does not weigh with me. What does weigh with me, to some extent, is that this term has been accepted, so far as I know, without any criticism, until today. In the last few months, since the Curtis Report, in the House and in all the discussions up and down the country everybody has accepted it—
  Sir T. Moore: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I raised this matter on Second Reading, and again in Committee, when I warned the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to move the Amendment.
  Mr. Younger: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member. He raised it, but no one else has done so as far as I am aware. We all wish to see the operation of this Bill inspired by humanity, but that is a different thing from sentiment. There is a sentimental flavour, both in the Amendment and in the arguments with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported it. I doubt whether the title would appeal, for instance, to the best type of modern social worker, who is certainly humane and inspired by principles of humanity, but who would not at all like to be called a sentimentalist.
  It would appeal even less to the children. In my small experience I would say that children are the least sentimental of all sections of the community. I know that my own small daughter would be more likely to call this "sloppy" than to apply any other term to it. I do not think that the children will be affected by the word "officer" or appreciate the word "friend." I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that children are likely to know these persons, not by their title at all, but as "Mr. X"

  1885
  or "Miss Y." I am afraid therefore, that I cannot accept this series of Amendments.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 43.—(Advisory Council on Child Care.)
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 31, line 22, to leave out "including," and to insert, "being."
  This Amendment, and the next, are designed to meet a point which was made in Committee where it was suggested that we ought to alter the emphasis in describing the composition of the Advisory Council on Child Care. The Amendment is designed to put more emphasis on the appointment of persons specially qualified in matters affecting the welfare of children, but at the same time providing for the appointment of persons having local government experience.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 23, at end, insert:
  "and persons having such other qualifications as the Secretary of State considers requisite.
  Among the persons appointed under this subsection there shall be persons having experience in local government."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 54.—(Provisions as to entry and inspection.)
  Amendment made: In page 36, line 29, at end, insert:
  "(4) Nothing in the two last foregoing subsections shall apply to a voluntary home which, otherwise than by virtue of section ninety-four of the said Act of 1933 or section ninety-eight of the said Act of 1937, is as a whole subject to inspection by, or under the authority of, a Government department."—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 57.—(Transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 37, line 35, to leave out from "to," to "of," in line 36, and to insert, "a local authority."
  This Amendment and the next three Amendments are all drafting Amendments similar to one which the House has already approved.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Interpretation.)
  Amendment made: In page 40, line 18, at end, insert:
  "'relative' has, throughout Great Britain, the meaning assigned to it by section two hundred and twenty of the Public Health Act, 1936"—[Mr. Younger.]

  CLAUSE 62.—(Short title, commencement and extent.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 41, line 20, to leave out from "on," to end of line 21, and to insert:
  "the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight."
  I should call attention to this Amendment. It sets out the date on which the Act will come into force, thus rendering unnecessary the making of an Order.
  Amendment agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Transitional Provisions.)
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 46, line to, to leave out "seven days," and to insert "one month."
  There are five Amendments here, all relating to the same point. These are transitional provisions, and since there will be such an extremely short period between the passing of this Bill into law and the date when it comes into force, it was felt that it was not only reasonable, but necessary, to allow a rather longer period for certain notifications or applications which have to be made to a local authority on the coming into forte of the Bill. Had this Bill come into force somewhat earlier it might have been possible to have had the ground more prepared, but the change from seven days to one month is really administratively necessary, and necessary in fairness to persons concerned.
  Mr. C. Williams: I entirely agree that this Amendment is needed. It would appear only common sense, in drafting a Bill of this kind, to put in a month. It is a great pity that the Bill was ever drafted with a period of seven days in it. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary ought certainly to have known about it far earlier, rather than that it should be left to us at this difficult point. It is a Committee matter and should have been dealt with then, if not previously.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 6, leave out "submitted," and insert "substituted."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 47, line 18, to leave out "or," and to insert:
  "the commencement of this Act, no notice under the said section seven need be given in connection with the taking possession of the child.
  (3) Where by virtue of the said section thirty-five the provisions of the said section seven become applicable to a child."
  This Amendment, and those to lines 19 and 21, relate to transitional provisions. The Amendments to lines 25 and 27 refer to the change from seven days to one month. This concerns children brought under the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939. Unless hon. Members require it, I do not think that I need explain the matter in detail. This is simply a similar transitional adjustment to those which have already been made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments.)
  Amendments made: In page 47, line 40, at end, insert:
  "In section eighty-two, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce.'"
  In page 47, leave out line 45, and insert:
  "'or, being too young to form or express a proper opinion on the matter is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend'."
  In page 48, line 5, after "paragraph (a)," insert:
  "after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce,' and."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 50, line 28, at the end, to insert:
  "In section eighty-six, paragraph (a) of subsection (4), after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce.'"
  This and the two following Amendments are consequential. They relate to Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 50, line 34, leave out from "words," to end of line 35, and insert:
  "'or, being too young to form or express a proper opinion on the matter is to emigrate in company with a parent, guardian or relative of his, or is to emigrate for the purpose of joining a parent, guardian, relative or friend'."
  In line 41, after "paragraph (a),"insert:
  "after the word 'induces,' there shall be inserted the words 'or persistently attempts to induce' and."—[Mr. Younger.]

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)
  Amendments made: In page 52, line 25, leave out from "subsection," to "in," in line 27.
  In page 53, line 31, column 3, at end, insert:
  "In section one hundred and two, in subsection (1) the words from '(f) in the case' to the end of the subsection."—[Mr. Younger.]
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I have to express to the House and to hon. Members of all parties who served on the Committee upstairs, my thanks for the way in which they have facilitated the progress of this Bill and for the many helpful suggestions which have been made, a great number of which I have found it possible to incorporate in the Bill. I should like especially to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) for the way in which he conducted his side of the Committee upstairs so that, though on two or three occasions we had quite strong clashes of opinion, we were able throughout to keep the matter off party lines and to discuss the Measure solely from the point of view of what was to be best for the child.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) upstairs attempted to introduce an Amendment defining the ages at which people might legitimately take some interest in the work of this Bill after it is passed into law. As I found myself outside the prescribed age, I felt some embarrassment when I intervened in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Therefore, I left the greater part of the discussion upstairs and here today to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whom I must thank for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill and

  1889
  for the efforts he made to master the whole of its proceedings. Of course, he is under the great advantage that his name will always ensure that, no matter what the discussion may be about, he cannot be ruled out of account on the ground that he has ceased to be young, for he will always be "Younger" no matter what the subject of discussion may be.
  I believe that this is a very necessary Bill. It enables the country to deal with a subject which has stirred it most profoundly. It is, I think, some tribute to the work that may still be done by enlightened people using the more respectable parts of the Press for the ventilation of public grievances, that this great Measure has virtually flowed from a letter that was written to "The Times" by Lady Allen of Hurtwood. It is true that it was reinforced by certain very practical difficulties which arose in the administration of the law with regard to the care of deprived children. I am sure that all those who have been closely connected with this work for any length of time will pay a tribute to the inspiration given to this cause by Lady Allen of Hurtwood and those associated with her.
  This Bill places new and heavy duties on local authorities. We have every confidence that they will realise the strength of public opinion that there is behind the Bill and that they will see that cases like the Dennis O'Neill case, and some of the revelations that have been made since the publication of the Curtis Report by discussions at local authority meetings, will be relegated to the past and will be merely unhappy memories.
  The Bill also brings into being the very important position of the children's officer. Both in Committee upstairs and in the discussions today there have been indications of how great an importance this House attaches to the due performance by these ladies and gentlemen of the duties that this Bill and their local authorities will place upon them. I have no doubt that in the years that lie ahead much unhappiness will be avoided, much happiness will be created, and many promising lives will be preserved through the skill, the affection and the attention of these officers. I reiterate the sense of obligation which I feel to the House. I had to ask both the House and the Committee upstairs to deal with the matter as one of urgency so that this Measure might
  1890
  become law by 5th July. I am exceedingly grateful to every hon. Member for the way in which he or she has co-operated with me in managing to get the Bill through in time.
  5.59 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Bill has now reached its final stage. It is a Bill which has been thoroughly considered and discussed, and very many admirable Amendments have been made. I am sure that every Member of the House agrees with me when I say that it is now an even better Bill than it was when we received it from another place. From the very outset, there has been complete agreement on the main object which this Measure sets out to achieve, which is to provide, as far as is humanly possible, that these deprived children shall have all the advantages which normally accrue to a child which is living with its own parents.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, there have been disagreements, but those disagreements have been due to opinions sincerely and honestly held as to the best means to achieve the ends which all of us have had in view. To a greater extent, it has been possible to resolve this disagreement through discussion and as a result of give and take on the part of the Minister and his Under-Secretary and hon. Members of this House. I think it would be quite unnatural if all these differences had been cleared away. Where administration is concerned, views have been expressed which have been formed over a long number of years and are likely to be held with a considerable amount of tenacity. But I think the Home Secretary can justly claim that this Bill will pass to the statute book with almost complete unanimity and with the greatest good will from this side of the House.
  I think it would be wrong to claim too much for this Bill, because what we have done has been merely to provide a skeleton which we want to see provided with an opportunity of life, and, if that is to be possible, those to whom we are entrusting the operation of the Bill will require to clothe it with flesh and blood. They will have to go further than that. If our high expectations are to be fulfilled, the local authorities, the voluntary organisations, the children's committees,

  1891
  the children's officers and the foster parents will have to try to inspire in the administration of this Measure the spirit which has been so evident throughout all the discussions which have taken place at every stage. I wish—it may be that I am wishing too much—that those who are to operate the Bill might find the time to read the proceedings which have taken place on this Bill, for, if they were to do so, they would realise that it is the spirit that underlies the provisions of the Bill, rather than the actual words themselves, to which we here attach by far the greatest measure of importance.
  I believe that we have succeeded, while setting up a central authority, in retaining a very large degree of flexibility, and in leaving both to the local authorities and the voluntary organisations a real measure of independence. I hope that these two systems, the local authority system and that of the voluntary organisation, will continue to work in friendly rivalry, that they will be willing to learn from each other so that the benefits of any successful experiments may be available to and be adopted by both. While I express that hope, I trust that no attempt will be made on the part of the central authority to impose standardisation, for I feel that that might well be fatal to progress.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) reminded us very pertinently during the Committee stage that the aim here was to provide happy homes, to give opportunities for happy childhood and the development of an independent and self-reliant spirit in these children. That aim we must keep constantly in view. Academic qualifications, as I have said on an earlier occasion, do not necessarily produce good mothers, and do not necessarily provide good guardians for those children, whether as children's officers, managers of homes or foster parents. I think that affection, sympathy and a real understanding of children should be the qualities most insisted upon when selecting people for these appointments.
  The hon. Lady also reminded us that order and a high degree of cleanliness are not of practical importance to a happy childhood, and I know from my own experience that children who are constantly inspected and reprimanded when their hands are not sufficiently clean or their clothes seem a little dishevelled, go
  1892
  through a kind of purgatory not very far distant from that described by Dante in his "Inferno." Therefore, I would hope that these children will be given the freedom which the average child enjoys, and, indeed, will be treated as normal children and not, if I may relapse into the Scottish vernacular, as "step-bairns" in any way. The translation, in English, is "stepchildren."
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, not only about myself, but all hon. Members of the Committee, who, I know, have done their best to help him, and I would express to him our appreciation on this side of the House of the manner in which he and his Under-Secretary received the criticisms which we offered and of the large measure to which they found themselves able to meet those criticisms. We give this Bill our full support. We send it on its way hoping that, through it, means may be found of remedying the very unfortunate conditions recently brought to light, which created such uneasiness in the public mind. We hope that the measures provided in it will give to the deprived children the benefits of the same happy life and that feeling of belonging and being wanted, which we ourselves endeavour to secure for our own children.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Dumpleton: I am conscious that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the discussion before we pass this Bill, and, therefore, I shall be brief. I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing my gratification for having been allowed to take some part in the proceedings on the Committee stage. This Bill is a most important Measure, dealing with a vitally important matter which, as the Home Secretary has said, was first called to our attention by the letter which appeared in "The Times," and by the stirring of public conscience regarding the care of these unfortunate children deprived of a normal home life. We all realise, I am quite sure, that the mere passing of this Bill will not necessarily meet the need which it has been designed to meet. On the administrative action which will follow the passing of the Bill, will largely depend whether that need is to be met or not.
  There are one or two matters connected with administrative arrangements upon which I should like to comment. The

  1893
  Home Secretary has stressed the great importance of the place which the children's officer will fill. It has been said that the children's officer is the linchpin of the whole administrative arrangements under the Bill. I am not so certain myself whether the children's officer is necessarily more important than the qualities of the people who will comprise the membership of the children's committees. I think there is a great need that those chosen to be members of these committees should be people who really have a sympathetic and experienced understanding of the needs of these children. It certainly is true that a great deal will depend upon the quality of the person who is chosen to be the children's officer.
  I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite in regard to the need for not too much emphasis on academic qualifications in choosing people for this work. I think that, as one reviews some of the appointments already made, there is cause for apprehension that undue emphasis is being placed upon academic or paper qualifications rather than the attention which should be given to experience, character and personality. While we want young people to do this work, young people with merely paper qualifications are not of the same value as older people who have perhaps brought up families of children themselves and have gained a wide experience. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take care to review retrospectively some of the appointments that have been made. This is a new field; we are experimenting; and it would be very valuable to look in a few years' time at some of the appointments now being made to see whether they have, in fact, worked out successfully.
  One great need in the successful working of this Bill will be to see that there are not too frequent changes of staff in the children's officers' department, in the children's homes, and so on, because too frequent changes of staff will lead to unsettlement and disturbance of the children. What these children need, perhaps above everything else, is continuity of experience and settled environment. If there is competition between authorities for qualified children's officers—of whom not too many are available—there may be a very undesirable frequent change of personnel,
  1894
  which will not be good for the service. That rather stresses the need for standard conditions of pay, training facilities, and so on, and the reduction of competition between authorities to a minimum.
  Finally, a few words about the children's homes. In Committee I indicated some hale apprehension about the difference of treatment provided in the regulations to be made, as between the local authority homes and the voluntary homes—as between Clause 15 and Clause 31. It would be a great pity were there to grow up two differing standards of child care. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that we do not want too much standardisation; there should be variety and individuality in the different homes; but it would be a pity were there two standards of child care, one not so good as the other. I hope that will be avoided in the administrative arrangements made under the regulations.
  I regret that on Report stage the Home Secretary has not thought fit to deal with one point in connection with Clause 31. In Committee we discussed the power to withdraw a child from a home where the arrangement turned out to be not very satisfactory. I then said that possibly, in those circumstances, there would be nothing unsatisfactory about the home itself, which may comply with all the regulations, but for some reason peculiar to the child—a physical handicap, or some other reason—the child may not fit particularly well into the home, rendering removal desirable. The Home Secretary recognised that there may possibly be such situations, and said he would consider the question before the Report stage to see whether there ought not to be put into the Bill power to make any necessary readjustment in connection with such a child.
  No doubt such a readjustment, when found to be necessary, will normally be arranged amicably between all concerned, but it seems to me that in the background there ought to be in the Bill a sanction to enable the children's officer, or the local authority acting through the children's officer, to insist that a child needing readjustment should be withdrawn from one home and put into another home, where such a change is found to be in the interest of the child.

  1895
  I hope that will be given some attention Mien the administrative arrangements are made. I am glad to have this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary on introducing this Bill, which I hope will lead to the meeting of the great need which has been shown to exist for the care of these children.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I should like to associate myself and those who sometimes sit in this part of the House with the remarks that have been made about the spirit and the competent way in which the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have dealt with this Bill. I think we have all learned a little more about a problem of which perhaps even we now know but little. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) hoped that those who have to operate the provisions of the Bill might read our Debates. Well, they might get some enlightenment by so doing; but I am surprised to find how ignorant we have all been about this question.
  This is a problem affecting all the war-devastated countries; yet, curiously enough, the 5,000 children who come under the Ministry of Pensions, the War Office and the Admiralty are left out of this Bill. A leading article in "The Times" today suggests that there is another problem almost as great as this, which this country has hardly tackled yet: the 100,000 children who come under the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This Bill, far from being a "Children's Charter" is but a competent piece of administrative structure to deal with one aspect of the problem.
  There are 120,000 of these children, and I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say specifically that he does not wish to see the 60,000 who come under local authorities treated in any way differently from the 60,000 who come under, say, over 1,000 different voluntary homes. Many of these children are quite normal; quite a number of them have got parents—a fact we are rather apt to forget; thousands of other children are blind, deaf, epileptic, subnormal physically and maladjusted, and are in the care of local education authorities, who have nothing to do with this Bill at all. So do let us keep a sense of perspective, now that we are passing the
  1896
  Bill. Moreover, we have given to this new children's committee 2,000 children once in the care of the local education authorities, in approved schools.
  Presumably, all the other agencies of the local authorities—particularly the educational and medical—will be utilised to give these children the social services which are open to all others. If some of us remain unconvinced about the administrative structure—and I shall certainly not flog that again—let me add a few constructive words. When the Education Act was in its Committee stage, I suggested that it was time there were two Under-Secretaries for Education—as there are for six other Government Departments. I should like to see—and I think the day will come—another Under-Secretary, preferably a woman, who will have charge of this vast and important job.
  I regard this Bill as a transitional measure, pending a more enlightened conception of public and educational responsibility. It has been said that we are all agreed about the objects of the Bill. I hope we are. I think the object of this Bill is to bring these children back into the main stream of normal life; and I devoutly hope that for the good of the child the children's committee and the children's officers will work as a team with other committees, with the education, medical and probation officers, and also with other social workers, such as the school attendance officers. Today, the functions of the local authority are becoming much more intimate; they are much more devoted to social welfare, now that their public utilities of gas, electricity and transport have been transferred to the State.
  Therefore, as was said by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton)—and I agree—we shall require on local authorities men and women who have a very special understanding of these social problems, and I am not sure that we are getting them at the present moment. I am not yet sure whether young men and women have the time to give up, or whether it is made easy for them to give up their time. I remember going round when we had on the local authorities in the old days distinguished Quakers and Liberals, for many years chairmen of our local education authorities, and later men like Alderman Wright Robinson—
  Mr. Dumpleton: I hope the hon. Member realises that Quakers and Liberals do not necessarily go together.
  Mr. Lindsay: I did not say they did. We have men like Alderman Wright Robinson, of Manchester, in recent days. It is not an easy job for young persons to get on to local education authorities and, unless co-option is to be used, not in any party sense—because in some of the biggest authorities round the corner it is the next man on the party ticket who is co-opted on to the education authorities, on to the governing bodies, on to the management of schools and so on—we shall not get them. If we are to bring into that kind of work men and women with experience, we have to tap a new part of the public spirit within the country.
  I believe there are some positive benefits which were conferred on this Bill by the Committee stage upstairs. I have rarely known a more friendly Committee. I think we have drawn from the Home Secretary one or two new admissions, and one is that, whether children are under the legal care of the local education authority or under the legal care of the head of a voluntary home, they belong to one family and have comparable rights. I want to thank him for the concessions, particularly in Clause 31, about the right to be visited, the obligation laid down about clothing, the obligation about training, after care and all the rest. This is a great advance. Let us not underestimate it. We have not secured observation centres as a right yet, and we have not specifically secured—although there was a tentative promise by the Home Secretary—that boarding-out shall be always operative. That was strongly recommended by the Curtis Committee.
  We have still to deal with adoption, which does not come in the Bill. Nevertheless, I welcome the spirit in which the Amendments have been made and I will say no more of the administrative set-up, except that in three years we may see some change. What is now required is a change in the spirit in the administration. Let us remember that grouped cottages were publicly condemned as long ago as 1893, in the days of Canon Barnett. I hope we shall see no more artificial villages, shut off from the outside community. I hope that the Children's Committee will be composed
  1898
  of men with imagination, men and women imbued with some of the radical spirit which made the Board of Guardians alter the old Poor Law schools 25 years ago.
  Above all, I hope that observation centres, modelled on the Caldecote Community in Kent, will become realities, and that they will be the determining factor in the placing of the child and not the body snatching which has gone on for many years in this country. Once more I plead with all the force I can that there should be continuity of care and attention instead of the loss of confidence and the breakdown which follows constant changes in environment. From the national point of view we cannot afford to lose 120,000 children, or to have their lives wasted. From the human point of view those children are a challenge to our social consciences, and if this Bill enables us to re-establish thousands of broken lives and families, I think it will be one more mark for this country in its care for the helpless minority—in fact, in these days, a good deed in a naughty world.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Royle: As one who has been associated with the Bill in all its Stages, perhaps I may say a few words on the Third Reading. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and myself were fairly closely associated on the Committee stage, but I do not share the pessimism which was displayed in his speech this evening. I have a much larger and wider view of the Bill than he appears to have at this moment. While I agree that there are still very many things to be done, I would say that in my view this Bill is a "Children's Charter" of a sort that we have not had since the "Children's Charter" of 1908. I believe we are taking a step forward which is of far greater importance than any Measure on the subject that has been before the House since that year. I am quite certain that most of us, at all events, are very happy about the aims and objects of the Bill. Its action implements the recommendations of the Curtis and Clyde Reports, and I believe it is welcome not only to hon. Members but to our people as a whole. The Reports of those Committees stirred public opinion as it had never been stirred before about the children of our country.

  1899
  While I agree that the body, the aims and objects of the Bill are ideal, I am not quite happy about one or two of the organs of that body. I wish I could feel as satisfied with the details as I am with the Bill as a whole. Very briefly, I want to make two points. In the Committee stage, and again to some degree on Report today, the question has arisen of the relationship between education committees and the new children's committee. It was very evident in the early stages of the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had made up his mind that the children's committee was not to be a sub-committee of the education committee. We have all been torn asunder by this matter and by this difference. After due consideration, I have come down on the side of the Home Secretary. It is much the better way that a new children's committee should be established completely independent of the education committee.
  That does not prevent any of us from thinking that there should be, particularly in the transitional stage, a very close relationship between the existing committees and the committee which we are now establishing, and I think that can be achieved in two ways. I hope my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity of sending out adequate circulars to local authorities so that the spirit which has been shown in the Committee and the later stage of this Bill will be transmitted to the local authorities and they may see what we have in mind in this direction.
  The second point is the employment of people with experience. That has been touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), and I expressed myself rather forcefully in Committee when I said that we must not establish, by this Bill, a new intelligentsia, but that we should use the knowledge and experience already in existence, such as that of school attendance and welfare officers, with years and years of experience behind them. I will not develop the argument again now, except to express once more the hope that those people will be used to the full and that they will be available for the appointments that are being made by the children's committee.
  We failed in Committee to carry an Amendment about the rehabilitation of
  1900
  homes. I hope the local authorities will take upon themselves the duty, within the terms of the Bill, to deal with that question. I conclude by hoping that the Bill will be more successful than the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities seems to think it will be, and I hope it will improve the conditions of the deprived children of this country.
  6.31 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: It is a measure of the agreement that has existed on all sides of the House during the passage of the Bill that I find that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) have between them said almost exactly what I had decided to say. Therefore, I shall be very brief. There are, however, certain things which they said that I want to underline. The first of these is about the children's officers.
  When the Bill was first introduced in another place, I was very much in favour of the contention of the Curtis Committee that great importance should be attached to the academic qualifications of the children's officers. However, as the progress of the Bill has continued, I have found considerable anxiety lest too much emphasis should be placed on the academic requirements. I think the reason why the Curtis Committee placed so much emphasis on the importance of the academic qualifications was that they desired that the children's officers should have the same status as other senior officers of local authorities, and that the children's officers should be on the level of directors of education. I think they feared that there was not much hope of achieving this unless the children's officers had certain academic qualifications.
  That very important consideration—and it is an important and proper consideration—should not, however, be allowed to make things more difficult in the appointment of children's officers at this present time. I do not think that the Ministry have done a very good turn to local authorities by the circular they sent out in September. That circular seems to me to have been given the wrong emphasis, and I think it is due to that that it has got about that these academic qualifications are essential. One part of the circular is based on paragraph

  1901
  446 of the Curtis Report. That paragraph, however, is a summary of very carefully considered recommendations and conclusions which run throughout the Report. I think that particular paragraph is a little unfortunate. It starts:
  "The Children's Officer should in our view be highly qualified academically, if possible a graduate … and should have had some"—
  some, if you pleaseߞ
  "experience of work with children."
  Then it goes on to say:
  "Her essential qualifications, however, would be on the personal side … She should be able … to set both children and adults at their ease."
  I think that that is putting the cart before the horse. It has been discovered, I think, since the circular was sent out, that there are not very many people who are fully qualified to carry out these duties. I know of two people who seemed to me to be admirably suited for the work, but who are not regarded as qualified. One was put on a short list of candidates, and then selected for the post by a very large local authority, and then disqualified by the right hon. Gentleman because she had not the necessary academic qualifications. I know of someone else whom the local authority are not likely to put forward because the local authority believe that without those academic qualifications, the person will not be selected for the post.
  I am all for having those qualifications at some future time. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the course of a few years we shall establish a series of qualifications. That is quite true; and that is what ought to happen. In the meantime, do not let us have any nonsense about putting too much stress on the necessity for having academic qualifications. It is quite wrong to have a sort of "iron curtain" between people who have been doing the work, and doing it proficiently, and the posts to be filled, preventing them from being appointed unless they happen to be among the few people who have taken degrees. After all, what does a degree signify? Learning obtained out of books or from lectures which other people have obtained from experience. The right hon. Gentleman ought most carefully to consider this.
  Then there is the question of the children's committees. The selection of
  1902
  the people to form those committees will be of the utmost importance in the administration of the Bill. What my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities said is absolutely true—young people of tremendous keenness and with knowledge, who have studied this problem, cannot afford the time to get on to local authorities to do this work. It will require very careful thought and a great deal of tact to see that people filled with proper civic pride on first obtaining the approval of the community to serve on local authorities do not consider themselves so good, so self-sufficient that they cannot make use of the best assistance available from others round about them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in watching the working of the Bill when its administration is begun, will keep an eye on that question.
  Finally, I should like to pay my tribute to all the people who have been responsible for the Bill from the very beginning—to the members of the Curtis Committee, to those who considered it in another place; and, in particular, I should like to pay my tribute to the Under-Secretary of State, who took this Bill through Committee in the most admirable way, and whom I have found, on all occasions when I have discussed points of detail with him outside the Committee, to be extraordinarily helpful in every way. I do not think all junior Ministers are all that good. He, at least, is a rose among daisies.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Tolley: This Bill will soon be placed upon the Statute Book; and in course of time, in all probability, it will be forgotten by most Members of Parliament. We pass on the responsibility for its administration—and rightly so—to local authorities. Their duty will remain. It is in that respect that I show my concern. We are today entrusting the local authorities, through this Bill, with one of the most responsible tasks ever passed to them through legislation by this House in all the centuries of its history. On both sides of the House this Bill has been welcomed, and rightly so. In giving it a good send off, we would say to local authorities that we hope that they will face up to their responsibilities under the Bill, because it entrusts them with the

  1903
  means of doing some of the most important work that anyone could do for anybody.
  We are dealing with unfortunate children, unwanted children. Some of us know from experience what it means to have the administration of these children. We have not been happy in the past about the method and manner of that administration, and, because of that, we welcome this Bill in every sense, for we feel today that we are giving these children a new chance. We have travelled far since the days of Dickens, when it was his responsibility to expose to the world the conditions of the unfortunate children who became unwanted, unknown and uncared for. This Bill abounds in humanism. Men and women of good understanding and good intentions, out of love for children will, I believe, volunteer in this service to help and assist those who, because they are motherless or fatherless, or because they are not wanted, become their care and responsibility.
  I would like to say a word about the children's officers who are to be appointed. Here again, I believe that the officers, whoever they may be—and I see no reason why both men and women should not be appointed—will have an enormous responsibility. How much will depend for the success of this Measure on the children's officers? They will be in supreme command, not merely administratively, in the sense of direction and control. It will be their charge to see that the children, once they are placed in the hands of the local authorities and in charge of the children's committees, receive the full benefits under this Bill.
  Like the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), I hope that too much attention will not be paid, in appointing these officers, to academic qualifications. The great essential for the members of the local authorities and especially the children's officers will be the ability to understand and appreciate the nature of these children. I said in Committee, and I repeat in this House, that it will not be an easy task. It will not be easy to bring under control these various types of children, and I hope that in making the appointments the greatest possible care will be taken to see that the
  1904
  human side of the individuals appointed stands out prominently—that they will be men or women of whom it can surely be said: they have love and admiration for children, and especially the unwanted children.
  I was also glad that in Committee there were discussions as to the method and manner—which may be small in some respects but which to me is a great thing—in which in the future, local authorities and children's committees will have instructions on how to clothe these children. What a tragedy it has been in the past. We have seen these children being taken out for a walk—perhaps for a day's outing; we have seen them going down the street, and we have been ashamed that we have dressed them all alike, with a tinge of the Poor Law about them. They stood out prominently for everybody to see, as the unwanted children of Britain. It was the best that we could do for them. The Home Secretary, with the great heart which he possesses, was moved to suggest that these children should be given by every authority the right to be dressed in the school tunic of the school they attend, or, at any rate, that there shall be no distinctive feature about the clothing they wear. They will, in every sense, be regarded and be given the opportunity of being regarded, although without parental control, with love and affection.
  I welcome this Bill, and I congratulate the Curtis Committee on the report which they presented, which, I believe, is the foundation of the Bill. I should also like to congratulate most sincerely the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for the way in which they piloted it through Committee. It may not be out of place also to congratulate those Members of the Opposition who sat on that Committee. We were, in every sense of the word, a united body. We had only one thought in mind. We were all agreed that these children needed this new charter. We wanted to see them provided with something different from that which they had in the past. We were unanimous in our general opinion, and our only differences were in the direction of trying to get a good Bill made, if possible, a better Bill—and in that we succeeded.
  I welcome the Bill, and I say to the local authorities who will be entrusted with the task of operating it, "Elect to serve on your authority and committee

  1905
  the right type of men and women." If they do that, I have no fear for the future of these unfortunate children. I believe that at last Britain has recognised the necessity for giving them this charter, and my hope is that, as a result of it, they will live happier lives and become even better men and women for Britain.
  6.46 p.m.
  Sir T. Moore: This is a good Bill, and it has become a better Bill because of the atmosphere in which it was discussed during all its stages up to date. There were no discordant voices in Committee. Why? Simply because, as many hon. Members have said, there was only one aim in the mind of every Member of the Committee. There is another factor about it which I like. It does not need any capital expenditure. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may have different views about that, but when we compare it with the Criminal Justice Bill, with the necessity of remand homes, etc., this Bill, when it becomes an Act, can be put into operation straightaway, and the benefits for the children will be almost immediately felt. That is a tremendous factor in its favour.
  On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was complementary to the Criminal Justice Bill. I now know, after the experience of the Report stage today, that that is not quite an accurate description. If this Bill is a success—as I believe it will be—it will cause many Clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill to be unnecessary. It is a big step forward, although it might have been bigger; but time and experience will show in what direction it can be improved. I hold in my hand a letter which tells me that the Bill is not perfect. It is a letter from a nurse engaged in one of these homes, and she heads it, "England's forgotten children." She speaks as one who has considerable knowledge, but I feel that in our Debate today, and in our discussions in Committee, we have made a great step forward towards meeting the various charges she has made in her criticism of the many homes in which she has served.
  As I see it, there are three essential factors necessary for the success of this Bill when it becomes an Act. One is the Home Secretary; the other is the local authority; and the third is the children's officers. The Home Secretary must, I think, exercise his functions with discretion and yet
  1906
  with firmness, bearing in mind always that some local authorities will need the whip and some will need the brake. I think that the local authorities must be energetic and yet restrained in interpreting their own powers under the Bill. I think that, most of all, they must be careful in choosing the children's committees and children's officers. We are all agreed that the children's officer is the linchpin, the centre stone of the arch, the one factor on which the whole Bill can fall to the ground or become a success. Therefore, I trust that the qualities of character, sympathy, tact and understanding will take precedence to academic distinction.
  It is a great enterprise on which this country is embarking through this Bill. It is an enterprise to bring love, guidance and the happiness of a good home to children who might otherwise have been deprived of them all. We all wish the Bill well, and we thank the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for the way in which they have assisted and guided us in moulding the Bill to its present shape. Like everyone else, I hope and pray that it will be a success.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: One of the points I wish to make in warmly supporting this admirable Bill is that it is part of a series of very useful Bills which have been recently introduced and passed, affecting children and young people. They are many, and I shall mention only three. There is the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Employment and Training Bill, and this Children Bill. It is part of a scheme, and I think that all the Bills together form a whole of which any Parliament might be proud. They are an inspiration, for that indeed is the true word to describe today's insistence upon the right of youth to fullness of life, opportunity and happiness. It recalls Longfellow:
  "How beautiful is youth! how bright it gleams
  With its illusions, aspirations, dreams!
  Book of Beginnings, Story without End
  Each maid a heroine, each man a friend."
  Too often is youth deprived of its aspirations and dreams, and the present series of admirable Bills tends to give back to youth the opportunity of realising its fullness, its full stature and its beauty. This Parliament takes a leaf out of the poet's book. It shapes laws to coach the child in health and robust citizenship, to enable

  1907
  him to live in wisdom and enjoy in leisured old age his retirement pension.
  Blessed always have they been who had good mothers and fathers to nurture them in their youth. Parliament says: Now and for evermore shall these blessings be afforded to the children of today. This Bill cares for them up to 18 years of age, whether they be orphans, abandoned or lost, or whether the parents be unfit or unable to care for them. These are categories of sorrow for children, leading to hopeless and often tragic adolescence and manhood and womanhood. These are the dark clouds which this and the other Bills which I have mentioned are designed to chase away.
  A particularly good feature of this Bill is that it turns its back on outworn institutional formulae, because it is agreed on all hands that children who are brought up in institutions do not stand up to life in the same way and with the same robustness of character as children who are brought up in family life. The Curtis Report makes this point, and this Bill implements it. It is generally accepted that there are various ways of getting over the difficulties involved in the case of children of this kind. There is adoption, which is easily the best. There is boarding out, which is a good second best if well supervised, and there are other methods such as residential communities and family groups, and this Bill also includes assisted emigration. However, there is, I regret to say, no mention in the Bill of the ineducable child—a sad and pitiful child whom nobody wants and for whom there seems to be, in this Bill at any rate, no provision.
  Turning to another point, on Second Reading a doubt was expressed—I think it was by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland)—on Clause 2 (1). That is the Clause which deals with the assumption by a local authority of parental control. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, in his admirable speech on Second Reading, seemed to express a doubt about that Clause.
  Commander Maitland rose—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I will let the hon. and gallant Gentleman speak in a minute. That Clause provides that a local authority may resolve that the rights of a parent
  1908
  shall vest in the local authority in certain cases. Such cases are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). They are:

  "(a) that his parents are dead and that he has no guardian; or

  (b) that a parent or a guardian of his (hereinafter referred to as the person on whose account the resolution was passed) has abandoned him or suffers from some permanent disability rendering the said person incapable of caring for the child, or is of such habits or mode of life as to be unfit to have the care of the child."

  Subsections (2) and (3) provide that in the case of dispute, it shall be settled by the juvenile court, or in Scotland by the sheriff. If I read aright the admirable speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, he seemed to think that in that provision there was something so difficult as to be almost insuperable. I do not agree with him. I do not feel at all pessimistic about the machinery provided by this Clause, because I think the Bill is aptly framed to meet this difficulty. Clause 1 clearly defines the duty of the local authority to provide for children. It also defines the classes of children who are to be so provided for, and provides the manner in which that duty is to be discharged. Then we come to Clause 2 which clearly shows how these duties are to be carried out. It seems to me that this Bill skilfully and scientifically links up with the Employment and Training Bill so as to bring the child to what Emerson called:
  "The high prize of life, the crowning fortune of man, which is to be born with a bias to some pursuit which binds him in employment and happiness."
  To get to that stage the child must live, and must have parental care. In the absence of parents, this Bill will provide a means whereby he can get that parental care. For those reasons, I warmly support the Bill.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I am very glad that the Bill will very shortly reach the Statute Book in the shape in which it leaves the House today. I cannot but have a tinge of regret that this Measure does not come under the Minister of Education. I say that, not because the Minister is with us today, but because during the discussion of this Bill, both in this House and upstairs, we have sometimes tended to lose sight of the enormous amount of the child's life which is subjected to the education committees.

  1909
  Listening to some of the speeches, one would almost imagine that we were back to the days of Dickens. That is not the truth of the matter at all, because the children are not so deprived as some Members would lead us to believe. This Bill is a coping stone to our existing child legislation. This is a field which has been covered for years by local education and poor law committees, although, perhaps, not quite in the way that some would have wished. The fact of the matter is that the poor law committees have been very limited in their sphere of work and in the money they could spend, which has meant that they have not been able to do all that they would have liked, and not that they did not wish to do these things. It must not go out to the country that by the passing of this Bill, we are providing a "Children's Charter." It is not so great a measure as that. Members are apt to forget, or are not fully acquainted with, the provisions of the 1944 Act, otherwise they would know that there is little in this Bill which is not already in that Act, and that there is practically nothing the local authorities cannot do under the existing provisions.
  I have said that I feel a tinge of regret that this Bill has not been introduced by the Minister of Education. I cannot dissociate myself from the idea that the Home Office are concerned with such things as penal servitude and capital punishment, but as far as the children are concerned they will not know from which Ministry these benefits will come. I regret that the Home Secretary has not allowed those authorities which have fully recognised their special duties under the 1944 Act to continue their present setup, provided he is satisfied with it. Many local authorities have been doing this work satisfactorily for years and have set up a new administration on the lines of the joint circular issued by the Ministers of Health and Education and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the parable of the talents, otherwise he would have seen that the good authority got its reward.
  In legislation we must bear in mind not only the delinquents but also those who have done the right thing, and we should see that their efforts are recognised and that they are rewarded. There would have been no hardship if the
  1910
  Minister had seen fit to allow these authorities to carry on with their present set-up. I speak as a practical administrator in this field for a number of years, and I have no hesitation in saying that 75 per cent. of the work will still have to be done by the local education committees, and that a very small percentage of fresh administrative work will have to be done by the children's committees. I do not want to diminish by one iota the importance of the children's committees. But I would point out that the chief education officer in my county is responsible for something like 200,000 children, whereas the children's officer will have only something like 1,200—I agree that the work of both is equally important and that to a certain extent the work is not quite the same.
  I agree that some benefit will come from this Bill, and I welcome it. It certainly focuses much more attention on what we call the "deprived children." One thing I hope it will do is to direct more attention to the importance of foster parents. One of the greatest difficulties which local authorities have had is that they have not been able to pay enough to foster parents. Undoubtedly it is with foster parents that these deprived children will find the happy home life we wish them to have. I agree with what has been said on the way our work was conducted during the Committee stage. Undoubtedly our work was very valuable in focusing attention on this problem. This Bill will be welcomed by local authorities and will, I am sure, be welcomed by my local authority. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do our utmost to implement it in the fullest measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), who left the House so quickly after making his speech—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Member referring to me?
  Mr. Marshall: I apologise to the hon. and learned Member. I did not notice him, as he has changed his seat. He mentioned that children from homes did not have the same privileges and advantages as are enjoyed by other children. I can tell him that for years we have had children from Poor Law homes who have taken scholarships and university degrees through the local education authority arrangements. Therefore, in that sense

  1911
  they are no more backward than the children who come from happy homes. Some of these children are very clever and are able to take advantage of all the provisions made under the 1944 Act. I welcome the Bill and join in praising the Under-Secretary for the very nice way in which he has piloted it through its stages. I can assure him that everyone in the country, and especially the local authorities, will do their best to see that it is a live and active Measure for many years to come.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Mann: I think this Bill is unique in that it has been entirely free from party controversy. For the first time since I came into Parliament, I have thoroughly enjoyed my work with Members opposite. We have all been of one accord; no one has suspected another; there has been no suspicion of motives; none have been for party, but all have been for the children. As a result, we have a very good Bill indeed. I can remember that when my own children were very young, I had great difficulty in getting them to bed in the Summer evenings. They usually demanded a story, and I may say with due modesty, Mr. Speaker, that I was always able to tell a very good story. Probably that was my apprenticeship for being a politician. I always began these stories with these words:
  "Twixt the dusk and the twilight,
  When the night is beginning to lower,
  Comes a pause in the day's occupation,
  That is known as the children's hour."
  When this Bill was introduced, I think Parliament stopped her usual occupation, and there came into it the children's hour, during which we produced this Bill.
  There are two points to which I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although they are not in the Bill. Since the Second Reading, many of us have been worried about the choice of a home and guardian for the child, which is a very important matter. I notice that nothing is said about this matter in the regulations for boarding out. It is not always advisable to choose a home for a deprived child where the parents already have children of their own. I hope that will be remembered, because, try as we would, it would be very difficult for the fairest of us here
  1912
  to give the same treatment to a deprived child which we had taken in, as we would give to our own children. My local authority have always been very careful to see that they did not hand over deprived children to parents who had children of a similar age at home. A deprived child might feel that there was a distinction,. even if it did not exist.
  I have had a great many letters from people all over Great Britain who want to adopt children. I have one from Glasgow, some from the South of England and some from the North of Scotland asking where they could get a child to adopt. I referred the writers to their own local authority, whereupon many replied that their particular authority had not, for instance, got a boy of eight. Similarly, someone else would write to say that their local authority had not got a baby girl. I therefore want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could set up some kind of a central bureau which would enable the North of Scotland to be linked with the South of England in this matter, so that if one local authority did not have a particular child, another could meet the need.
  With others, I join in congratulating my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend who have piloted the Bill through this House—the younger and the old. The older is still young in heart and sound in experience, wisdom and good common sense, and I think the Ministerial combination on this Bill has been ideal. We now pass it on to the generosity and good-heartedness of the people of this country, because with them rests the last word in looking after our deprived children.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: The Debates on this Bill have been so harmonious from start to finish, and there has been such a wide measure of agreement, that I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House in finally commending it to Members before we part with it for the Royal Assent. I would like to add my thanks to those of my right hon. Friend for the very helpful way in which Members on all sides have co-operated, and for the very kind words which have been spoken today. I would particularly like to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) for the flowery compliment which he paid to

  1913
  me, and to say how glad I was that he chose the flower he did with which to compare me. I was nervous for a moment lest he might have chosen another.
  I think it is a good thing that in this Debate Members have been looking ahead, and that no one has tended to over-estimate the amount of work which has already been done. The real work is still to come. It all depends on the type of training we are able to give, on the wisdom of the advice and supervision which the Home Office staff can supply, on the quality of personnel we are recruiting, and perhaps especially in the quality of the children's officers and the success of those officers in greatly extending the system of foster homes. A good many hard things have been said about the handling of this problem since the Curtis Committee made their Report. People have been apt to talk as though all the failings had occurred at ground level in the local authorities. We must realise, however, that the standard must be raised everywhere, including that of supervision, duties and inspection such as will be supplied by the central Departments in London. I can assure the House that the Home Office are very conscious of their responsibilities in this matter.
  One of the things which Members have referred to frequently in the Debate—some with misgivings—has been the question of the qualifications which are being demanded for some of the staff, notably for the post of children's officer. I agree, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will also agree, that we cannot be completely hidebound in this matter. At the same time, I would like to emphasise that we are trying to raise standards. We are trying to get something new, something better. While we cannot regard academic qualifications as being a substitute for experience, we hope to be able to add such qualifications to experience. It may be very difficult at first, but we hope that the mere institution of the system we are setting up by this Bill, together with the other innovations by means of other social legislation, may provide a stimulus to the study of social questions generally, and may greatly increase the supply of people who, in addition to their other personal qualifications, have academic qualifications.
  I do not think I need say much about the main controversy over this Bill—
  1914
  about the education committees or ad hoc children's committees. My right hon. Friend said a good deal about this on an Amendment earlier today. I will offer only two brief comments: first, we are all looking for a new departure in this question of child care, and I believe that the mere fact that we are creating a new set-up in local government areas will tend, as I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) said, to focus attention on this problem. I believe there is some advantage merely in the fact of change, quite apart from other arguments to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  The second point is that, however wide the educationists, the education authorities, the education officers and the schoolteachers may cast their nets—and we all know that, very rightly, they are interpreting the word "education" ever more widely—they always leave a big place for the parents of the normal child. It is that place which the children's committees and the children's officers seek to fill. They do not seek to encroach upon the legitimate work of education authorities. Indeed, they will rely upon that when they are seeking to fill the gap which is bound to exist, no matter how wide the educationists cast their nets.
  We have learned that many different types of body are concerned with the care of these children—central and local authorities, voluntary organisations, religious communities, and so on. That is merely an indication of the fact that the child, like any other human being, is many-sided, and, while we want to focus responsibility for this work on one Ministry in London and one committee in the local authority area, I should like to emphasise that we cannot possibly do it without the widest co-operation from all local authority services, from the health services, from the education services and from many others. It would be quite wrong if we were to put the whole of the work exclusively upon the children's committees and the children's officers because they could not possibly provide all that the children need. I should like to make a strong appeal to everybody who will be called upon to co-operate to refrain from any kind of sectarianism or Empire building in this matter.
  I should like to mention the voluntary organisations. The hon. Member for the

  1915
  Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) voiced a fear which others have voiced, that there might not be parity of treatment for the children who come under the auspices of the voluntary organisations with those who come under the local authority. We have got to remember that the voluntary organisations are, as one would expect, highly individualistic. They have many merits and some defects. They cannot be put into a pattern, nor would we seek to do so. Moreover, while often pioneers, they are still responsible for the care of very large numbers of children, and the service they give could not possibly be satisfactorily replaced even if we wished to do so in a short space of time. It is right that, while increasing, as we have done, the degree of supervision and, I hope, the degree of advice and help that we can give to these organisations, we should still leave a good deal of initiative to them.
  Like other social legislation, this Bill is being launched at a difficult time. It may be difficult to implement some of the things that one would like to see implemented. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) suggested that, unlike the Criminal Justice Bill, this Bill would not be hampered by current shortages. It will be hampered less, but nevertheless we all know that there are many unsuitable homes, a great lack of sites, and that it is going to be a long time before we get rid of the large institutional buildings in which the children are at present housed. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right in suggesting that there are many reforms under this Bill which will not be affected by shortages. If this is a time of difficulty, it is also a time for the spirit of change and for high endeavour. The House, in parting with this Bill, will earnestly express the hope that all concerned in the shaping of it will strive to realise at the earliest possible moment the benefits to the children for which this Bill can do no more than provide a legal framework.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) [MONEY] [No. 2]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation Signified.)
  [MR. ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as respects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods buildings or structures, or as respects exports, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries and other remuneration paid to officers and servants, and contributions under pension schemes in respect of members, officers and servants, of the Monopoly Commission constituted under that Act."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: It is only right that on an important Resolution such as this we should know something about it before it is passed, because this is in connection with a Monopoly Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons. The Money Resolution stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Financial Secretary, who only a few days ago reprimanded me because I did not know everything about everything in a Scottish Bill. Here with his own Resolution the right hon. Gentleman is not even in attendance to help us with information which we might need. We miss the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed.
  The first point I should like to put is that it will be noted that this Resolution is for the purpose of setting up a staff to deal with monopolies when this Bill becomes law. I should like to know—we are entitled to know, because this Bill is granting the Government money for the purpose—approximately what is the sum to be taken from the taxpayers for this purpose. There must be some estimate of it. In the old days there would always have been information on the point. The Financial Secretary in those days could have told us that it was approximately so-and-so and we should have some sort of idea of the sum involved in this case. I should also like to know what staff will be required for this pur-

  1917
  pose. The taxpayers, particularly in Cornwall as well as in Scotland, would like to know very clearly what this is to cost and what sort of new officials are to be taken away from work that is necessary.
  Have the Government any idea at the present time where the quota of staff is coming from and what kind of monopoly they are going to deal with? The only monopoly of which we have heard anything in the House is that dealing with willows. Perhaps the willow monopoly will be the first with which they will deal. As far as I am concerned, the Resolution is altogether unnecessary. With the exception of the willow monopoly, there has never been any instances of monopolies, but I suppose at this stage we should allow it to go through.
  7.30 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): We can always rely upon the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to put the question he has put tonight. When the substantive Financial Resolution was before the Committee he kept hon. Members till two o'clock in the morning to ask what the cost was going to be. If he had read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at that time he would have seen there an estimate of £50,000. Today, he asks, quite properly, what is the cost going to be, and today I give him the same answer, £50,000. I can well understand the fear he may have that the figure might be substantially increased as the result of the change which the Financial Secretary is proposing, and which has led to the putting down of this Financial Resolution. I do not propose to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the monopolies into which we intend to inquire. If he had followed the proceedings of the Second Reading and had read all the speeches on the subject he would know how many monopolies there are outside the willow growing industry, into which it might be appropriate for this Commission to inquire.
  The whole purpose of this amended form to the original Financial Resolution is to make provision for the Commission to be able to pay public money for pensions and pension contributions for their staff. The only reason why we have had to put this Resolution down is that there is now a change in the set-up of the Monopoly Commission. At the time of the earlier
  1918
  Financial Resolution, the staff of the Commission was to be appointed by the Board of Trade. It was therefore reasonable to suppose that the staff would consist of civil servants whose pension rights would be adequately looked after. There has been a widespread feeling, to which I have agreed, that the staff should be appointed not by the Board of Trade but by the Monopoly Commission itself. That being so, there is the possibility that some members of the staff, if not all of them, might be brought in from outside the service. It seems reasonable that every step should be taken to enable the Commission to pay superannuation contributions for such staff. That is the only reason for introducing this change. It was done, I believe, to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not likely to make any difference to our previous estimate, and that the cost should not exceed 50,000 a year.
  Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for the speech that he has just made, and for pointing out that the main purpose of the Resolution is the payment of pensions and pension contributions. I do not know whether I ought to be relieved upon hearing that the cost will come on to the Monopoly Commission instead of the Board of Trade. In both cases it is likely to fall upon the taxpayer, so there is not much difference between them, as a matter of administration. The right hon. Gentleman seemed a little afraid lest I should keep him up until 2 o'clock in the morning. I was not aware I had done so before. I had no intention of doing it at the present time because I have other interests in mind. I thank him also for having emphasised my point that there is a willow monopoly, of which I was not quite sure. I thank him further for having said that there may be other monopolies that he does not think are anything like as bad as the willow monopoly.
  Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member obtained that impression quite erroneously from the remarks that I have just made.
  Mr. Williams: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would know his brief before he speaks, and make it clear to the Committee. I understood that there was some agreement with the Monopoly Commission on the subject. The right hon.

  1919
  Gentleman went on to say that there were other monopolies mentioned in the Debate and I concluded that the others did not loom as large as the willow monopoly and—I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to speak.
  Mr. Wilson: There was nothing in my brief at all about willows. It was a most extraordinary subject to raise. When I said there were other monopolies besides willows it was not the same thing as saying that other monopolies are less important than the willow monopoly.
  Mr. Williams: I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that the other monopolies may not be so important. Perhaps it is because they are not so monopolistic. We will leave it at that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS
  7.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): I beg to move,
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 13th May, be approved."
  Section 81 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act laid down that, in relation to development consisting of the winning and working of minerals, the provisions of the Act should have effect subject to regulations. These are the regulations which, with the consent of the Treasury, we now introduce. Under Section 12 (2) of the Act, any kind of mining operation constitutes a development. The Act deals with development of all kinds. What we seek to do by these regulations is to apply the general principles of the Act to the special case of minerals. Before I turn to the regulations themselves perhaps I might say one word on the subject of existing undertakers and about the general development order which was laid before Parliament on 6th May last.
  Under the definition of development in the Act, continuance of a mining operation of any kind is made impossible after 1st July unless it has planning permis-
  1920
  sion. The only existing permissions which are preserved are those which were granted after 22nd July, 1943. No one wanted a general hiatus in mining operations throughout the country. Therefore, to cover that situation, we issued this general development order last month. Briefly, it allows all existing undertakers, unless they are contravening a previous planning control, to continue as permitted developers for a period, and we have put this period thus: four months for the undertaker to put in his application and a further 18 months for the local authority to give their decision.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the regulations themselves? Regulation 3 (1) is a drafting regulation indicating where "use "does, and where "use" does not include mining operations. Its principal effect—there are minor effects—is that it makes Section 72 (2) of the Act, which enables the Central Land Board to determine development charge for a period only, applicable to minerals. I turn to the five main matters specified in Section 81 as those which may be the subject of regulations. Our minds go first to the promise that was given during the Debate, and which is in the Act itself, that there should be some dead ripe concession in the case of minerals similar to that which exists in the case of building land.
  Regulation 4 (1) exempts from development charge for a period of three years mining undertakers who have an interest—"interest" includes option or contract—on the appointed day. That benefit accrues only if the minerals are actually worked. That is the most important of the regulations we put forward. Indeed, it justifies their being put forward, even though there may be some other matters, to which I should like to refer later, which are still under discussion. Regulation 4 (2) provides a corresponding adjustment in the claims upon the £300 million for loss of development value.
  That brings me to the subject of the method of collecting the development charge itself and to the range of it. In this matter the Central Land Board must have substantial discretion. That is provided for in the Act. For example, they must take into account representations made by applicants. Regulation 8 (1) provides that these development

  1921
  charges can be assessed either in proportion to the volume of extraction—that is, on a royalty basis—or by any other method which is commonly used, and that the payments may be collected annually, periodically or on a capital basis. Regulation 8 (2), which is in common form, provides for the Board to have access to books and documents and provides that any information they obtain must be treated as confidential.
  Regulation 9 (1) provides for the variation of a royalty payment under an existing lease. A contract already entered into can be revised in the light of a development charge. Arising out of that, a special tribunal is set up—it is described in the Schedule; its members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor—to decide what is fair in that matter. I would add that, whilst the lessee pays the development charge, the landlord is obviously concerned with the amount of the development charge—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Hear, hear.
  Mr. King: —and, for that reason, the Central Land Board are willing to hear representations made by the landlord as well as the lessee.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question in view of the very important statement which he has made? Will he say whether that power for the landlord to make representations is contained in the Act or in these regulations?
  Mr. King: The power is not contained in the Act or the regulations. It is a purely convenient arrangement by the Central Land Board.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid rose—
  Mr. King: I will just finish. It is possible for the Central Land Board to arrange to take such persons into consultation.
  Mr. Reid: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to dominate the Central Land Board? Is the Central Land Board merely the creature of the Minister of Town and Country Planning? If so, of course the hon. Gentleman can give an undertaking here which binds the Central Land Board, but if, as I suspect, the Central
  1922
  Land Board is entitled to have some independence of its own, then how can the hon. Gentleman here bind the Central Land Board, and what redress have we if the Central Land Board do not do as he says they are going to do?
  Mr. King: In answer to the first question put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the relations in general between the Ministry and the Central Land Board are perfectly clearly laid down in the Act and can be found out by anybody. In answer to his second question, the Central Land Board are perfectly entitled to authorise my right hon. Friend or myself to make such a statement on their behalf, and they have so authorised us.
  Mr. Reid: May I take it that, contrary to the principle which has now been established about nationalised industries and Questions in this House, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will answer Questions directed to him about the doings of the Central Land Board? If some hon. Member puts down a Question asking the Minister of Town and Country Planning why the Central Land Board have not received or properly attended to the representations of a certain person, do I understand that the Minister will answer that Question? Otherwise the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has now given seems to be completely useless.
  Mr. King: I am certainly not going to be led into making general statements—
  Mr. Reid: I thought not.
  Mr. King: —as to what the Minister will or will not do on a general subject. I made a perfectly clear and definite statement of what the Central Land Board are willing to do in this matter. They have authorised us to make this statement. As far as I am concerned and as far as these regulations are concerned, that is the end of that matter.
  I will now turn more generally to the subject of compensation. Claims on the £300 million under Part VI of the Act can be made by anyone who has a financial interest in mineral deposits in the same way as a person can claim on account of any other form of development rights. Normally it is the landlord who will claim because it is on him, though

  1923
  not exclusively on him, that the development charge will fall. Many leaseholders will not need to claim because their remedy lies in another direction. Whereas the landlord will have been compensated on account of the reduced royalty which he will receive, the leaseholder now splits the royalty into two payments, the first going to the landlord and the second to the Central Land Board which, under the new dispensation, is the owner of a development right. The leaseholder should pay no more than he pays now. The two payments should add up to the whole existing payment. The proportion which one bears to the other should be decided by the tribunal which is described in the Schedule—
  Mr. Molson rose—
  Mr. King: Perhaps I may finish. I may answer the hon. Gentleman's point. I said "normally." That is what will frequently happen but there may be one class—perhaps the hon. Member has it in mind—to which I will draw special attention. I am perfectly conscious that it may be a very large class. It is the leaseholder who enjoys what is called a profit royalty, that is, a lease which is so advantageous that the value of the payments which he is at present making to his existing landlord may be less than the value of the payment now due to the Central Land Board. The leaseholder then suffers loss, and he then, too, will claim on the £300 million. The near ripe scheme takes account of his case as it takes account also of the freeholder who owns a freehold on the appointed day. I am not going to develop that theme at length. My right hon. Friend dealt with this in his statement reported in HANSARD on 1st August, 1947, and details are still being worked out.
  A special committee of the Minerals Committee of F.B.I. are now negotiating with the Central Land Board, and my right hon. Friend has asked the Board to widen the discussions to consider how far they should go and even consider whether further regulations should be necessary. When those negotiations have gone a little further my right hon. Friend will almost certainly see the Central Land Board and the other interests, and arrive at a final conclusion which will then be made known. Regulation 7 provides that the value of buildings and equipment shall
  1924
  be excluded from calculation of development value. Thus, claims on the £300 million will not be enlarged by the value of building, plant or materials.
  A word now about claims under the heading of "abortive expenditure." They are confined first to existing undertakers—to existing undertakers who have been refused permission to continue their operations—and they are limited by Regulation 10 to those who are operating either on the basis of an existing planning permission or who were operating before planning control was in existence—and in that latter case, were still working before 1st January, 1946. Further, if benefit is there sought, they must apply within four months after the appointed day under the provisions of the General Development Order. We bring in here two other classes. The whole House would like us to bring in the first one—those who before January, 1946, stopped work owing to some concentration order which took place during the war, and a similar concession comes to those who stopped within 10 years before 7th January, 1947, in the normal course of their operations, which I believe happens in some industries.
  Now a word in regard to revocation or modification of permission. Regulation 3 (2, a) provides that compensation shall not include the value of unworked minerals unless the development charge has been paid, and Regulation 3 (2, b) provides that compensation for buildings or equipment shall only be provided if those buildings and equipment are redundant or can only be used at a loss.
  Mr. Molson: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to go back to an earlier point which was puzzling me? I thought he was referring to those who discontinued their operations after the Bill had been published. What is the significance of the date, 7th January, 1937?
  Mr. King: The date is January, 1947, and 10 years before that is January, 1937. The only point is that some form of mineral undertakings have, in the normal course, certain breaks. Compensation in the case of compulsory purchase is dealt with in Regulation 5. Again we do not include the value of unworked minerals unless the development charge has already been paid, and in assessing the value of buildings and equipment we have regard

  1925
  to planning permission, which is another way of saying that existing use value is guaranteed. Regulation 4 (3) provides that no claim for compensation shall be increased on account of the three year run which all mineral undertakers have.
  I think I have now dealt with the more important provisions of the regulations, which have been framed after exhaustive consultations with literally dozens of the trade organisations involved. Most of them—I will not say all, because perfection in these matters is not easily attainable—have agreed and we have reached satisfaction. Where there has been criticism, and there has been some, it has usually been far more on the ground of what is not in the regulations. I would add that, in the light of discussions now taking place, and of what is said in this House today, it is by no means certain but it is probable that we have not yet finished with this subject, and that further regulations may yet be introduced. Therefore the criticism of what is not in them had better await a later date when the matter is nearer completion.
  I therefore commend the regulations to the House as consistent with the intentions of the Act from which they derive, and appropriate to the industries which they so closely concern.
  Mr. Speaker: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's previous sentence, I ought to remind the House that a criticism of what is not in the regulations would certainly be out of Order.
  Mr. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we discussing the Scottish and English Regulations together?
  Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the first set of regulations. If there are some Scottish points which can be discussed with them, that is a matter for the House to decide. I would not lay down that we should take them all together. We are now on a general discussion of the first set of regulations.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: While I welcome the fact that this order which is intended to apply to England is moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and not by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I must say I do not think
  1926
  that the hon. Gentleman's exposition of the effect of these regulations is entirely satisfactory. The House may remember that when the Minister of Town and Country Planning moved the Second Reading of this Bill, in his two hours' speech he devoted just two passages to the question of mineral rights. I should like to remind the House of what he said then:
  "First, mineral workings. The application of the compensation-betterment provisions to existing mineral undertakings raises special and exceedingly difficult problems which do not lend themselves to a solution capable of satisfactory embodiment in a Statute and appropriate to all cases indiscriminately."
  And then, a few minutes later my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) intervened to ask:
  "Is that all that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to say about betterment?"
  The Minister replied:
  "That is all I propose to say. Is there anything the right hon. Gentleman would like to know."
  Then my right hon Friend said;
  "There is the whole problem of how existing minerals are to be dealt with."
  And the Minister said:
  "I explained that existing mineral workings will be dealt with by Regulations, because there is such a variety of different circumstances and conditions, and it might be unfair to one type of undertaking or another, if we attempted to deal with that matter by Statute. Future workings will come under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will see the Regulations, of course, before they come into operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432, cc 970 and 971.]
  Now we see the regulations, and the first thing that occurs to me is that I cannot see any possible reason why these regulations could not have been included in the Bill. Quite obviously they could have been and, if they had, each provision in these regulations would have been subject to detailed consideration, so far as the operation of the Guillotine permitted, and possibly in some respects amended. Now this House has either to take these regulations or reject them, with the faint hope held out that our words may possibly result in some further regulations altering these regulations being made in the future. This is another instance of the new technique, of avoiding discussion in this House by introducing an important Amendment on the Report stage. Of course discussion is avoided even more if an important part

  1927
  is left out of the Bill, to be dealt with by regulation, for it may even be found much easier to get regulations through this House than a Bill subject to the guillotine.
  In considering these regulations, however, surely we have to determine to what extent the wide variety of different circumstances and conditions, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, to what extent the special and exceedingly difficult problems which do not lend themselves to a solution capable of satisfactory embodiment in a statute, are met by these regulations. There is no attempt at all to deal with a particular mineral industry in a particular way. The provisions in these regulations deal generally with all the mining extraction industries. A short time ago we had a Debate on the Development Charges regulations which laid down the governing principle for the determination and assessment of the development charge. Under those regulations the Central Land Board have power to modify the governing principles where they think that their application to mining would be inappropriate. But there has been no indication given to this House at any time of what sort of consideration the Central Land Board would take into account in waiving or modifying those governing principles, and when we debated those regulations I had some hope that that kind of matter would fall to be dealt with in these mineral regulations which, it was indicated, would be following shortly thereafter. Those regulations throw little light on the special and exceedingly difficult problem. Similarly, the regulations today give no light on them.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to certain questions upon the application of these regulations. It will probably be more convenient if I put my questions upon each paragraph in chronological order rather than follow the course taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. My first question concerns Regulation 3 (2), which amends Section 22 of the Act. That Section deals with the payment of compensation where permission has been revoked or modified; it provides that a person interested in the land can recover compensation if he
  1928
  "has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by the revocation or modification, or has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the revocation or modification."
  I should like to ask whether that fully applies—I think it does—to mineral undertakers, subject to the express exclusion in Regulation 3 (2, a) in respect of unworked minerals. Paragraph (b) appears to deal with buildings only. Can the mineral undertaker who suffers loss or damage
  "… directly attributable to the revocation or modification"
  recover compensation for that loss in cases where it is not confined to buildings, plant or machinery? Paragraph (b) deals only with buildings, plant or machinery. If, for instance, labour charges have been incurred in moving plant or machinery, can they be taken into account? I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will answer this particular point.
  Regulation 3 (3) provides that
  "an enforcement notice … may be served"—
  by the local planning authority—
  "within four years after the breach has come to the knowledge of the local planning authority."
  Why should there be this departure from the general provision of Section 23 of the Act, which provides that an enforcement notice can only be served by a local planning authority within four years of such development? We did not have an opportunity of discussing Clause 23 of the Act in Committee because it was one of those operated upon by the Guillotine. Why has the right hon. Gentleman imported this difference in the case of minerals? There is a great deal to be said for keeping local planning authorities on their toes, for keeping them alert and on their guard to stop wrong development. Is not the Minister encouraging lethargy if he says they can take action at any time so long as it is within four years of their noticing the incorrect—the not permitted—development?
  I would ask him to try to bring this matter into line with the Act if he brings in any further regulations because there does not seem the slightest reason for the departure from the principle laid down in that Measure. If the local planning authority have to watch buildings and act within four years of the development, there is no reason in this case why they should not act within four years of the

  1929
  mineral development or, if they do not act within that period, be debarred from doing so. The threat of an enforcement of planning control should not be allowed to hang over people's heads when the duration of the threat depends upon the time when the matter was discovered by the local authority.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what is his difficulty?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hoped that I had done so. The right hon. Gentleman will see, in Regulation 3 (3), that
  "Where minerals have been won and worked after the appointed day in breach of any condition subject to which the permission to develop was granted, an enforcement notice in respect of that breach may be served under Section 23 of the Act at any time within four years after the breach has come to the knowledge of the local planning authority."
  If the right hon. Gentleman will contrast this with Section 23 (1) of the Act he will see there the words,
  "… the local planning authority may within four years of such development being carried out … serve … a notice."
  That is the difference and that is why I am asking him to explain it. I hope I have made the point clear.
  Mr. Silkin indicated assent.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: My next comment relates to Regulation 4 (3), which provides that,
  "No claim for compensation on compulsory acquisition of land or on the revocation or modification of any permission to develop land shall be increased by reason of the provisions of this Regulation."
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Let us imagine some land which comes within Subsection 4 (1) is compulsorily acquired within the next three years—that is, three years from the "appointed day"; does it mean—as I think it does—that the only compensation for the owner of the minerals in that land—minerals for which he has probably paid or, at any rate, is liable to pay; does it mean that the only compensation he will get on the compulsory acquisition will be the existing use value, ignoring his right to take those minerals for the next three years without payment of a development charge and without a right to compensation? If that is so—as seems to me to be the effect of Subsection (3)—certain
  1930
  mineral undertakers who lose their land by compulsory acquisition may be most unfairly penalised. They are entitled to work, without payment of a development charge, minerals in the land for a period of three years. They will get no compensation from the £300 million fund in respect of those minerals, but, if any part of that land which they were going to work in those three years is compulsorily acquired, these minerals would be entirely ignored from the assessment of compensation. That is how I understand the provisions.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is the benefit of the moratorium of three years?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should express it differently. What will they be paid? If, in assessing compensation, Regulation 4 (1) is ignored, they will be paid on their existing use value in respect of unworked minerals. Let me take as an example a field near Corby, in Northamptonshire, now used for grazing cows, from which within the next three years minerals—iron ore—will be extracted. Let us assume that one of the companies there has the right of extracting those minerals within the next three years and has paid for that right. If that field is compulsorily acquired within the next three years, what will the owner of those mineral rights be paid? As I understand it, all he will be paid is for existing use of that field as agricultural land, and he will have no right of claiming under the £300 million fund and no right of claiming anything in respect of minerals he is debarred from using. Have I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman now?
  Mr. Silkin indicated assent.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me if that is a correct interpretation. I pass to paragraph 8 of the Regulation which reveals clearly the true nature of a development charge on mineral undertakings. It really means the levying of a State royalty first upon the mineral undertaker and, unless he can pass it on, a royalty that is bound to be reflected in the cost of production and the prices of goods, except in the case of coal, as coal is excepted from the operation of these regulations. In the first place it is a charge

  1931
  on the mineral undertaker. He is the only person, as distinct from the owner, who has the right to apply for assessment of the development charge under Section 70 of the Act.
  In moving this Regulation the hon. Gentleman said, what I think everyone was glad to hear, that the Central Land Board would be willing to receive representations from the owners of the land. I hope they will not change their minds. But, bearing in mind that they are not in any way bound not to change their minds, I suggest it is most unsatisfactory, unless the rights of people to apply to the Central Land Board are clearly defined. It would appear that under the Act as it stands there is no power for the owner of the land to apply to the Central Land Board for the assessment of a development charge, unless he also is the person who is going to work the minerals. In the case of minerals, in my opinion there is a very strong argument for saying at the earliest stage, both in respect of existing leases, which may be varied, and in respect of future leases, that the owner of the land should have the right of appearing before, or making representation to, the Central Land Board when the development charge is assessed. In dealing with this matter on the Committee stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said:
  " powers are contained in the Clause to enable an adjustment of the lease to take place with the object of ultimately placing the burden of the development charge on the owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th March, 1947, C. 851.]
  Under these regulations it is quite clear that the owner has no right to be heard when the development charge is assessed, even though, if the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says, the object is that the owner shall ultimately have to bear the burden of the development charge. It is not clear from these regulations whether or not the owner of the land has any right to appear before the Tribunal which considers whether or not there should be variation of the lease. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that question. There is no provision in the regulations giving the owner that right.
  Those are my criticisms of the details of these regulations. I have a much more far-reaching and, I think, more important criticism to make. We know that the
  1932
  development charge on mineral extraction in the form of a State royalty will go to the Central Land Board. I have taken the view, and have stressed it not infrequently in this House, that the first charge on any development charge of this character should be for the restoration of the surface and of the amenities on all mined-out land. This matter has particular significance in relation to my own county of Northampton. A White paper was published by the right hon. Gentleman in September, 1946 (Command 6906), Report on the Restoration Problem of the Ironstone Industry in the Midlands. The foreword, no doubt with the right hon. Gentleman's approval, contained the sentence:
  "The Government desire to record their appreciation of the action of the industry in voluntarily putting forward recommendations as a positive contribution towards a solution of the problem. These recommendations and the Report as a whole are at present under consideration and it is intended as soon as possible to issue a statement as to future policy."
  We have not as yet, so far as I am aware, had any statement as to future policy. The cost of restoration of surface varies considerably, and is often high. Here we are being asked to consent to these minerals regulations, which entirely ignore in their content the problem of restoration of surface where iron ore has been extracted and, indeed, restoration of surface where other minerals have been taken. In Northamptonshire at present 3,600 acres are completely derelict—
  Mr. Silkin: I do not wish to stop the hon. and learned Member's interesting remarks, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but is not this out of Order as ruled by Mr. Speaker as dealing with something which is not in the regulations?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Mr. Speaker said one could not criticise something which was not in the regulations. I am criticising the regulations because they do not deal with a particular subject which affects the whole assessment. To put it in another way here we have regulations seeking to impose and provide machinery for the collection of development charges on extraction of minerals. The right hon. Gentleman has said time and time again that the cost of restoration—
  Mr. Silkin: On a point of Order, could I have a reply, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid I was not following the hon. and learned Member very closely, but it seemed that in a somewhat technical argument he was going into details. It may be possible to say that one does not agree with this regulation because of some omission, but it would not be in Order to go into the details of that omission.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I further submit to you, Sir, that these are very detailed regulations. Surely I am entitled to go into detail in putting forward objections to them? In that connection, may I draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the development charge on minerals has said:
  "In finally assessing the development charge, account will be taken of the obligation to carry out restoration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 26th March; 1947, c. 851.]
  My comment, which I submit I am entitled to make and the question I am entitled to ask is, to what extent is that undertaking carried out by these regulations? I was going on to point out the extraordinary importance in relation to the development charge dealt with by these regulations of the question on whom the burden of restoration should fall. If the burden of restoring the surface falls upon the owner then that is an additional argument which I pray in aid for the owner in all cases having the right of appearing before this tribunal.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to that?
  Mr. Silkin: I am bound to say that I consider that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely out of Order. He is trying to argue a case in relation to something which is not in the regulations, and by the Ruling of Mr. Speaker he is not entitled to do so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not aware of the terms of Mr. Speaker's Ruling but the hon. and learned Member is entitled to give as a reason for not approving the regulations the fact that there is an omission from them. He is not entitled to go into detail about that omission. These are matters of degree and there are limits to them.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I agree that there are limits, but I am trying, so long
  1934
  as I am in Order, to deal with this technical subject as briefly as I can. I would not try to evade any Ruling which has been given. This is an extremely technical point. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard my argument and I understand that this is an embarrassment to him. May I put the point in another way? In the case of a mineral lessor and a lessee, by these regulations the development charge is laid first upon the shoulders of the lessee. We know that the lease may be varied. Provision is made for that under the regulations, but there is nothing in them to show what considerations are to be borne in mind in determining whether or not the lease should be varied.
  Presumably, and this is the point which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, one of the factors that may be borne in mind is the question of the cost of restoration. That may be borne in mind in varying the lease or in assessing the development charge. I find it hard, as I dare say you do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to follow the intricacies of these regulations. I am seeking to ascertain to what extent that is provided for by these regulations, bearing in mind particularly the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill when he said:
  "If the owners are going to carry out the restoration, as is the case in a good many leases, as the hon. and learned Member knows, obviously that is a matter which can be taken into account in fixing the development charge. However, the intention is quite definitely to make allowances for the cost of restoration in considering the amount of the development charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th March, 1947; c. 851.]
  Now one arrives at this position: A mineral undertaker having a lease applies for the development charge to be assessed. The lessor, the landlord, has no right at present of being heard before the Commission. The landlord may under the lease have upon his shoulders the full burden of restoring the land. Is the development charge to be fixed by the Central Land Board on the application of the lessee without that factor being taken into account? If it is to be taken into account can the right hon. Gentleman point out to me where it is provided in this or in other regulations which have come before the House?

  1935
  I suggest that so far as mineral extraction is concerned this House ought to be told, before it can say whether or not that part of these regulations is satisfactory, what provision is being made for implementing the undertakings given by the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee stage of the Act. Although we were promised this statement on future policy as to restoration in 1946 we have not yet had it, and its absence makes it difficult to determine whether or not these regulations, so far as Regulation 8 applies, are fair or not.
  I have only one other question to ask. Under these regulations the value of plant and buildings is ignored, I think I am right in saying, when assessing claims against the £300 million fund. Is it also ignored when assessing the extent of the development charge? It should be. Or is the right hon. Gentleman saying that where someone has installed, for instance, a cement works and wants to get the raw materials for those works from somewhere nearby the amount of the development charge is to be increased because those cement works happen to be where they are? That would be the effect, would it not, of taking plant and buildings into account in assessing the amount of the development charge? Surely, if plant and buildings are to be ignored in connection with claims against the £300 million fund it would be right that they should also be ignored when assessing the amount of the development charge.
  8.28 p.m.
  Mr. Mitehison: I wish to add one or two words because I am certain that no one can sit for a Northamptonshire Division without being very much concerned with the question of how development charges are to be calculated so as to ensure that the restoration of the land there takes first place. I, too, have in mind the promises that were made in the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and I am comparatively little concerned at the moment with the question of who is to pay for the restoration, but I am exceedingly concerned with securing that the restoration is done and that a decision in the matter is reached very soon.
  These workings are proceeding at a pace which makes the figure given by the hon.
  1936
  and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) already out of date. While I appreciate that time may be needed for a decision in the matter, I hope that something will be done soon, for I fail to see how the development charges can be fairly assessed unless there is some policy about restoration. On the technical points that were raised there seems to me to be much that can be said and, indeed, in regard to one or two of them I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had perhaps not sufficiently read the regulations before criticising them.
  I noticed, for instance, that in commenting on Regulation 9 (1), he said that there was no indication as to the line on which royalties, or other payments to be made under the lease, were to be varied by the tribunal. I should have thought that if he had read through that which he was criticising, he would have seen that the test was precisely the amount of the development charge. If indeed that is so, as I believe it to be so, it becomes even more important to know what is the relation between the amount of the development charge and the obligation—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member has misread Subsection (1):
  "… the lease may be varied by the tribunal prescribed … so far as may be just having regard to the development charge."
  Mr. Mitchison: That is exactly the passage to which I was referring. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there was no indication as to what the tribunal should have regard to. What it is to have regard to is the amount of the development charge. That seems to me to be abundantly clear, although we may perhaps be allowed to differ on it. But this is also clear: if that is so, and if the tribunal is to be guided by the amount of the development charge, then it becomes additionally necessary that there should be some indication as to the relation between the amount of the development charge on the one hand and the obligation to restore on the other.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I did not intend to make a speech on these regulations, and the House, I am sure, will be relieved to hear that my intention, in the main, holds good. I wish

  1937
  only to put a question. I did wonder whether to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, by way of interjection, or to reserve it for the Minister. Having regard to the rather unhelpful response to his question which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) received from the Parliamentary Secretary, I decided to reserve it for the Minister.
  What I would like the Minister to do, and what many people who interest themselves in these matters would like him to do, in the course of his reply is to make some more detailed reference than has yet been made to the working of the near ripe scheme in regard to minerals. We are now on the eve of the appointed day and not only the public generally but, in the main, people who concern themselves in one way or another with these matters, are still very much in the dark in regard to the near ripe scheme, both as regards land and as regards minerals. There was a very brief reference made to it by the Chairman of the Central Land Board—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must keep his remarks in relation to the regulations. That is the matter we are discussing.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, had not the advantage of being present—or perhaps I should put it the other way round and say that the House had not the advantage of your presence—when the Parliamentary Secretary introduced these regulations to the House. In so doing he did refer quite specifically to the near ripe scheme. If it is referred to by the Minister, presumably it can be commented on from the other side of the House. May I go on to say that it is one of the disadvantages of the way in which the Minister has chosen to deal with this particular fact that it is not specifically in the Act and the regulations. Nevertheless, there are these preferential claims upon the £300 million fund relating to what is called the near ripe scheme.
  I think it is time that the public had some idea of how much of that global sum for compensation will be represented by these preferential claims, both in respect of minerals, with which we are dealing more specifically this evening, and in respect of the near ripe scheme for land. I hope that the Minister will take this occasion to make this matter more clear.
  1938
  He must realise that it is of immense importance to every person with a claim on the fund, and he must appreciate how much they will welcome some more precise information on this matter.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: It seems to me that the further we proceed with this Act, and the regulations dealing with the manner in which the Act will operate, the clearer it becomes that minerals, in the main, are not conformable to the general principles of the Act. That is borne out by the fact that in this particular set of regulations we have had to adopt a new principle in the calculation of the development charge, the principle being the one commonly applicable to a mineral owner in fixing a royalty charge. It seems to me that within the paragraph which permits this, a very wide discretion is given to the Central Land Board.
  I trust it is the intention of the Minister to leave the Central Land Board with fairly wide powers concerning the fixing of this charge. I ask this for a number of reasons, chief of which is the possible effect on the development of minerals in this country. I can understand how these principles can be applied fairly easily in the case of minerals being worked. I have rather more difficulty in understanding how exactly they will be applied in the case of a new mineral being discovered and an undertaker wishing to work it. Will the Land Board fix a charge at the commencement of the operations before any mineral has been won? Having fixed that development charge, will the Central Land Board be in a position to vary it? We ought to have some indication of what is intended here, because in the case of a number of minerals the fluctuations in prices are very considerable. If we wish to encourage the development of certain minerals, there must be power given to the Central Land Board to vary the charge accordingly.
  It seems to me that the success of these regulations will depend upon the way in which the Central Land Board administers them. If the Central Land Board approaches the question of developing minerals purely from the point of view of gathering in a development charge, the effect of these regulations will be bad. If, on the other hand, it approaches them with the intention, which I am sorry to

  1939
  see the Minister has gradually withdrawn from during the course of this Bill—namely, of encouraging the development of minerals, then probably they will work quite well. We ought to be given some indication about this, because the Minister seems to have changed his attitude towards this problem during the course of this Act.
  When we commenced discussions on the Act—I remember the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) raising this point and I had some controversy with him at the time—it was thought and felt that here was machinery that could be used either to encourage or to stifle industry. That criticism, I think, is correct, and particularly true in connection with minerals, because now the mineral undertaker has not only to go to the land owner for his lease, and to the mineral owner, but also to the planning authority and to the Central Land Board. Unless the Central Land Board uses these charges and uses the machinery supplied here for the purpose of encouraging industry, it will tend to stifle enterprise in mineral development. I hope the Minister can reassure us on this point.
  8.40 p.m.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): We have had a useful discussion, in so far as it has been in Order. I think that there is very little left for me to say except to answer some of the questions put by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). First, let me explain what is the purpose of these regulations. Perhaps I might put it in this way. They are interim regulations which are necessary to be made in order to carry out the terms of Section 81 of the Act to give the industry a three-year moratorium and to carry out the other matters referred to in that Section. This does not purport to be a final settlement of the very complicated and intricate question of the development charge or of compensation as related to mineral workings. The question is complicated enough as applied to normal development, but it is much more intricate than in regard to ordinary development when it is applied to mineral workings.
  The answer to a good many of the points made on the question of near ripe
  1940
  land, on the question whether it is proposed to extract as much revenue as possible, or to assist the industry to develop—the answer to that kind of question is that discussions are about to proceed over a very wide field between representatives of the industry and the Central Land Board. It is hoped that, subject to the terms of the Act, it will be possible to carry the industry with the Central Land Board and to get regulations which are appropriate to mineral workings. It must be obvious to anyone who has studied the Act—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Minister referred to industry and the Central Land Board. Bearing in mind the interests that the owners have, and should have, in restoration, will they also be consulted?
  Mr. Silkin: I will say something about that.
  Mr. Mitchison: Will the local authorities in the parts of the world which are particularly concerned with this be consulted?
  Mr. Silkin: The answer is, "No." The local authorities are not directly concerned with problems of development charge or of compensation. It would be quite inappropriate to discuss those questions with them. On the general question whether the owners would be consulted—I take it that it was not particularly in regard to restoration—my hon. Friend replied. I know that there is nothing in the regulations requiring the Central Land Board to consult with any particular persons and it is not proposed to put that in the regulations. My hon. Friend has given an assurance based upon an authority from the Central Land Board that in the case of leases the terms of which are subject to variation and which will come before the tribunal, the owner who is vitally affected will be consulted.
  Not only will he be consulted and have a right of hearing before the tribunal—I recognise that that would be rather late in the day—but he will also be consulted, in that type of case, on the basis of the development charge that will be levied. That is an assurance which I hope the House will regard as satisfactory. It is an assurance that will be honoured by the Central Land Board. It is given not as a result of any direction by the Minister.

  1941
  It is an assurance that the Central Land Board regard as reasonable in the circumstances, and I am sure that they can be relied upon always to act reasonably in any matter which comes within their province.
  I will now deal with the specific questions put to me. I was asked whether the Act applies as regards Regulation 3 (2), (a) and what was the position under Regulation 3 (2) (b). I was asked whether labour costs, for instance, will be included. My answer is that Section 22 of the Act applies to both regulations. Whatever Section 22 allows by way of compensation will be applicable to both parts of Regulation 3, subject to the exceptions referred to in the regulation. In other words, the interpretation which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman put on the two regulations, is, on the whole, correct.
  Then I was asked why there was a difference between the wording of Section 23, which provides for a period of four years after development has taken place, and the regulation which provides for four years after the discovery of a contravention. The answer is that there is no date at which one can say, as regards mineral workings, that development has taken place, except the date when the whole of the land has been finally worked. Nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that workings may take place over a period of 100 years or more. It would be inappropriate to use the same language as regards mineral workings four years after development has taken place as is used in the case of normal development which takes plate and is finished. Therefore, in effect, although not in actual words, there is no conflict between the regulation and Section 23 of the Act.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Even allowing that there is a good deal in what the Minister has said, the phraseology of this paragraph is rather unsatisfactory. The phrase
  "… after the breach has come to the knowledge of the local planning authority"
  is one which will have to be interpreted in the courts. It is a little imprecise and will give rise to a good deal of argument. I should have thought that the Minister could have found a more precise phrase to express what he has in mind.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman should be the last to complain about anything giving rise to legal argument.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am trying to help.
  Mr. Silkin: It is the best phrase that we could find. What we clearly had in mind was that we had four years from the time when we discovered that a breach of conditions or a contravention of the Act has taken place. I should have thought that even the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman would find some difficulty in discovering any ambiguity about the language. It is simply a matter of establishing that the contravention came to the knowledge of the local authority. The time they have is four years from that date. I was asked, on Regulation 4, what would be the basis of compensation if the land was acquired within three years, and, in effect, whether the benefit of the moratorium would be excluded. I think that is what the hon. and learned Member for Daventry had in mind. The answer is "yes." In the vast majority of cases, this is a moratorium which applies, not to a specific piece of land, but to the total area that can be worked within three years, and, if a portion of that land is acquired, the owner can still go on working the rest of his land for three years and will not suffer.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It depends on the size of the portion.
  Mr. Silkin: Yes, it does, and I concede that there may be cases where the whole of the land would be required and where there would be nothing left for the mineral worker to exercise his activities at all. In these cases, the owner would have his claim for compensation on the whole of it. Therefore, it was thought correct that, if the land had to be acquired, the owner should not get the benefit of the moratorium.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my interrupting again in order to clarify this. Does that mean that, in such a case, the mineral undertaker would be able to claim against the £300 million fund, if his land were compulsorily acquired within three years' time?
  Mr. Silkin: Yes, within the three years. At the end of the three years, he would be in exactly the same position as anyone else; if his land is acquired, he has his rights under the Act. Within the three years, either he goes on working the rest of his land and does not suffer, or, if the whole of his land, or a sufficiently large part of it, is acquired so as to interfere with his working, he has his claim on the £300 million fund. Then, I was asked why the existing use value of the buildings, plant and machinery at existing workings is excluded, and, if so, why should not the same criterion be applied in the case of the development charge.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not, in fact, criticise the exclusion.
  Mr. Silkin: No, the point was that the same criterion or basis should be applied both for the purpose of the development charge and for the purpose of fixing the existing use value in order to assess the claim for compensation. That is a point which is noted as being one of the points that will be discussed between the Central Land Board and representatives of the industry. In advance of those discussions, I am not going to say whether there is justice or not in the point made. I recognise that there is a superficial justice, but it is a point which requires much more consideration than it is possible to give in a Debate of this kind. I will only say that the Central Land Board have a perfectly open mind on this question, and it is hoped there will be a satisfactory conclusion of these discussions.
  The only other point with which I have to deal is the question of restoration. This is a matter which interests and concerns me as Minister very greatly. I do not live in Northamptonshire, and do not suffer the daily discomfort of seeing the results of the operations of the iron ore workers, but I have had the opportunity of seeing them, and I do recognise that there is a problem here which must be dealt with. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the cost of restoration is a factor which might be taken into account in fixing development charge, and possibly also in making the claim to compensation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would have wished that something had been put in the regulations. I know he was out of Order, but, if I may be equally out of Order, I will explain why it is not
  1944
  possible to deal with this matter by way of regulations. The simple point is that under Section 81 (3) it would be ultra vires, so I am advised, to refer specifically to the question of restoration as a factor in fixing development charge. That is the advice which I have been given, and I must accept it. The Central Land Board will do their best with the Act as it is and with these regulations, to take into account the question of the cost of restoration. There is a three-year moratorium, and by and large the question will not arise for some time, but it may well be that they might have to take this matter into account, and in that case we shall have to look at the question again.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to pass these regulations without having firm legal advice about the meaning of these provisions? I should have expected a Law Officer to be here to tell us. I see there are two Scottish Law Officers here, and we shall, therefore, receive authoritative advice on this part of the Scottish Order. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not asking us to part with these regulations without telling us whether or not it is intra vires for the Central Land Board to take into account this question of restoration? If it is ultra vires to mention it in the regulations, surely it is also ultra vires for the Central Land Board to take it into account. Has the right hon. Gentleman been firmly ad vised that that is the case? If that is the case, how can he say that the Central Land Board are going to pay any attention to it at all?
  Mr. Silkin: We are all skating on rather thin ice, because, strictly speaking, we are only entitled to deal with what is in the regulations. That is the Ruling of Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Reid: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has allowed discussion on either side of the House to proceed out of Order. It is perfectly plain to my mind that everything that has taken place in this discussion up to date has been in Order, and is not in the least in conflict with any pronouncement which was made by Mr. Speaker. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to charge Mr. Deputy-Speaker with having permitted a discussion which is out of Order.
  Mr. Silkin: Nobody knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I did no such thing. I said we were skating on thin ice. In saying that, I was paying due regard to the warning of Mr. Speaker that while we may refer to certain matters, we must not go into them at length. That is exactly the Ruling that I was trying to obey. The answer is that there is an element of doubt as to whether the regulation would be ultra vires or not. I said there was an element of doubt as to whether or not it would be ultra vires to state in the regulations that account should be taken of the cost of restoration in fixing development charge. I repeat, and I agree with the right hon. and learned Member, that if there is an element of doubt in stating this in the regulations, clearly it would be doubtful to take account of it in fixing the charge.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—it is extremely important and I am not quite clear about it. This point was raised on the Committee stage of the Bill, and the assurances always were that it would be dealt with later on. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now departing from what he said before? I quote:
  "The intention is quite definitely to make allowance for the cost of restoration in considering the amount of the development charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th March, 1947; c. 851.]
  Is he departing from that, or is it merely a matter of doubt?
  Mr. Silkin: I hope I have not departed from the intention. All I say is that doubts have been raised as to whether it is possible in the Act as it stands. If it should turn out that difficulties have arisen, one would have to come to the House and make the necessary Amendments. I simply explain to the House why in these particular regulations the question is ultra vires.
  Mr. Mitchison: I understood discussions were to proceed between the Central Land Board on the one hand and the landowners on the other about development charges, and that it remains the intention, in one way or another, to take account of the question of restoration in these development charges. Surely in those circumstances it would be reasonable to
  1946
  allow the local authorities to take part in these discussions, because it is they who are concerned to represent the inhabitants at large on the question of restoration and they are further concerned in many cases as housing authorities who want to use the land for housing if it is available for that purpose.
  Mr. Molson: If I may raise another aspect of the same point—
  Mr. Silkin: I have already given the answer. These discussions are purely financial discussions and, as such, do not directly affect the local authorities. They are applicable to all mineral workings throughout the country—in many cases where questions of restoration do not apply in an acute form. It would be unduly cumbersome to invite local authorities, as bodies who are only indirectly concerned, to come into discussions which, as I say, are almost entirely financial.
  Mr. Molson: When the right hon. Gentleman said there was some doubt as to whether it would be intra vires for the question of the restoration of land to be dealt with under these regulations, he was referring to cases where there is no provision under the existing lease. Suppose that under an existing lease, a royalty owner is either under an obligation for some reason to restore the land, or his land is going to be left in such a state that it cannot be used for another purpose, am I right in understanding these regulations to mean that that would be taken into account in determining how much rent—if I may use the word—is to be left to him after the Central Land Board has taken its share? One further point in connection with that. The cost of administering estates where minerals, are being worked is very much greater than where it is an agricultural estate, and presumably the Board will take into account the additional cost of the administration of the minerals. Is that right?
  Mr. Silkin: On the first point, I would say, almost without hesitation, that if the question of restoration is dealt with in the lease, under the terms of the lease, it is a factor which the tribunal could, and would properly, take into account in reassessing the new rent. That would be obvious. As to the question of whether costs of administration would be taken into account, that really is a matter

  1947
  which must be left to the Central Land Board. It is not provided for in the regulations as such. Whether it is ultra vires or not, I do not know at the moment, but it is a matter which, I hope, may be safely left to them to deal with. I think I have covered such points as have been raised—
  Mr. Keeling: The right hon. Gentleman expressed doubt, not only whether the cost of restoration could have been dealt with in the regulations, but also whether it could be dealt with by the Board under the Act at all. Will he give the House an assurance, for this is a very important and rather urgent matter, that if it is found that the cost cannot be included in the development charge, he will come back to the House for further powers without any delay—at latest, in the next Session of Parliament?
  Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, of course I cannot commit myself or anybody else as to what is to happen in the next Session of Parliament. All I do say is that of necessity there will be matters under this very long and complex Act which will have to be looked at again, which may be the subject of amendment. Certainly, if it is found that it is not possible to take the cost of restoration into account in fixing development charge, it would be a matter upon which it would be necessary to come back to the House, and so far as I am concerned I would give an undertaking that that would be done. I cannot say when.
  Let me say on the question of restoration that it is, of course now possible, particularly since the Act of 1947, to make conditions as regards mineral workings which will provide for restoration. The real trouble was with those mineral operators who began their operations before the days of planning control, and in respect of whom it was not possible to impose conditions as regards their workings unless they desired to extend their working and acquire new consent. We are dealing in fact, with a limited class of case. I think such powers as the Act, provides are sufficient to enable us to control the question of restoration in the future. However, I do give the assurance, so far as I have given it to the hon. Gentleman, as regards the possibility of
  1948
  having to come back to the House to make an amending order.
  Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question whether it is possible to vary the development charge after the first or second year of the mineral operator's work.
  Mr. Silkin: It is possible under the Act to vary it—under Section 73, I think. It is possible only to vary it downwards It cannot be increased. It can be decreased.
  Mr. Willis: That means to say that the Central Land Board, knowing the development charge can be varied only downwards, is likely to start by fixing a high development charge, which will be a discouragement to those wishing to undertake operations.
  Mr. Silkin: I hope that they will exercise their functions in a responsible and public-spirited manner. The object of the Act is not to discourage development but to encourage it. Indeed, if we were merely looking at it from the point of view of revenue, it would be advisable in the long run to encourage development rather than discourage it, because there is such a thing as killing the goose that lays the eggs.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is able now or expects at any time to be able to inform the House whether the amounts represented by preferential claims have any ceiling within the £300 million or not, because obviously that affects the whole matter?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That cannot possibly arise under the regulations. It is a different question altogether.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We cannot leave the matter where it is. We have got into an astonishing tangle. In March, 1947, the Minister gave an undertaking that allowance would be made for the cost of restoration in considering the amount of the development charge. Presumably, before he gave that undertaking he was advised by the Law Officers and did not give it without some assurance that he could give it. Now what happens? He tells us that the matter is so doubtful that he will not put in the regulations anything to give effect

  1949
  to his undertaking. If it is too doubtful for him to put anything into the regulations to give effect to his undertaking, equally it must be too doubtful for the Central Land Board to give effect to the undertaking, unless the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Central Land Board are going deliberately to adopt a course which they are advised is of such doubtful legality that the Minister himself will not adopt it. I cannot believe that the Central Land Board, which consists of distinguished lawyers, can possibly adopt that line. Therefore, the Minister is now telling us, not only that he is not going to give effect to his undertaking, but the Central Land Board will feel themselves prevented by legal difficulties from giving effect to the undertaking. I do not blame him too much for discovering something at the last moment.
  Perhaps, the Lord Advocate will explain the difficulty. I cannot see what it is. Section 81 of the Act appears to be so general in its terms as to allow of regulations to deal with it. It would be helpful if the Lord Advocate would tell us the nature of this last minute legal difficulty which prevents the regulations from containing provisions to give effect to this Parliamentary undertaking. The fact remains that it has been made clear to the House tonight that the Minister's undertaking will not receive effect until a new Bill becomes law in this House. That has been made as clear as anything can be, and yet the Minister will not tell us when this new Bill is to be introduced.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That matter of legislation is outside the purview of this discussion. I have perhaps allowed more latitude than I ought to have done, but the question of new legislation certainly cannot arise on the question whether these regulations shall be approved or not.
  Mr. Reid: I do not want to pursue the matter beyond the bounds of Order, but may I explain why I went so far? I do not like to trespass in these matters. We are now being asked to approve of certain methods, or a lack of method, of fixing a development charge. When we were told at an earlier stage that the development charge would be fixed on a certain level, that was an undertaking given to us by the Minister. We are now told that under these regulations development charge must be fixed at quite a different
  1950
  level from that which would have been necessary if the Minister's undertaking had received effect.
  I am saying therefore that it is hard upon this House to be asked to pass these regulations at all in the circumstances. If we are asked to pass regulations which are in conflict with a Parliamentary undertaking given by the Minister, at least the Minister's request for these regulations ought to be coupled with an undertaking to introduce remedial legislation at the earliest possible moment. That is the point I wish to make, and I hope that it is within the bounds of Order. I am a little surprised that the Minister has not obtained from the Lord President of the Council and his colleagues permission to introduce such a Bill before now. I hope that the Minister can add a little to what he has just said. It is most unsatisfactory that an undertaking of this kind should have to await the passing of legislation which may or may not be introduced within the present Parliament.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 13th May, be approved."
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. King: I beg to move,
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Modification of Mines Act) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 13th May, be approved."
  I hardly think that it is necessary to say more than a few sentences on this Motion. Parliament found it necessary to pass the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act in 1923, in the hope that certain mineral reserves available to strengthen our economy should not be neglected. That Act applied only to a very limited class. We are now extending it, as Section 81 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, indicated we should. Regulation 4 of these regulations enables any person desirous of developing minerals to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for working rights, provided that the land has been allocated in a development plan for that purpose. These regulations have been circulated to any organisation that might have been interested in them. No-one has represented that the regulations should be

  1951
  changed. I hope that this absence of disagreement will be represented in this House tonight.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to ask only one question about these regulations. No-one has any major objection to them, except that it ought not to have been necessary to make them at all. It seems to me, as in the case of the last regulations only with very much more force, that the regulations add nothing to the provisions of Section 81 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act. I think the making of regulations could have been avoided altogether if the statute had contained all that was necessary for its own application. I therefore hope that we shall be told why it is necessary to make the regulations at all and why these provisions could not have been put into the Act.
  Mr. Silkin: Section 81, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, gives power to make regulations on specific points and subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations. Therefore, it did not at all follow that the particular matters set out in the Section in the form in which they are set out would be covered in the regulations. We found that the Section is adequate. It gives power to make regulations, and we have made them in the terms of the Section. I should have thought that there could have been no possible complaint about that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Modification of Mines Act) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 13th May, be approved."
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. King: I beg to move,
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement of Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts) Regulations, 1948, dated 25th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 25th May, be approved."
  Here we attempt only to consolidate the law. The House will be aware that the 1947 Act repeals certain other Acts in whole or in part and notably Sections 1–3 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935 and Section 4 (2) of the
  1952
  Building Restrictions (Wartime Contraventions) Act. What had to be taken care of was to provide means of dealing with breaches of the previous law occurring before the repeal of the legislation, for which no remedy would be available unless there was specific provision. The effect of the regulations, taken together, is only to bring into line with the procedure envisaged in the Town and Country Planning Act so much as is relevant or necessary of the Ribbon Development Acts and the Building Restrictions (Wartime Contraventions) Act.
  9.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does anyone in the House quite understand what the Minister has been talking about? I certainly do not. I wonder whether he himself does. Would it not be possible, instead of repeating over and over again these numerous Acts which mean nothing to the average Member in this House, just briefly to explain what exactly he is proposing to do in simple English, basic English—any English which would be understood—but not to repeat countless numbers of Acts of Parliament and regulations which have been laid on the Table, passed or circulated? We are here to find out what it all means; that is what we are here to judge. Please can the hon. Gentleman give us any knowledge of anything he has been saying?
  Mr. King: It is possible that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) finds it difficult to understand because for most of tonight's Debate he has not been in the House. That always makes it very much more difficult, and I sympathise with him in his predicament. I have explained as simply as I can the effect of these regulations, that the 1947 Act repeals certain other Acts, both of which I named—I will not name them again because the hon. and gallant Member does not like to have them named—and the penalties available under the repealed Acts had to be brought under the umbrella of the 1947 Act.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the hon. Member giving the House to understand that the two Statutes which he named are repealed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947?
  Mr. King: I gave it in greater detail the first time and rather roughly the second time because the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not quite understand. The actual situation is that Sections 1–3 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, Section 4 (2) of the Building Restrictions (Wartime Contraventions) Act, 1946, and the whole of the 1932 and 1943 Town and Country Planning Acts, together with many other Measures, all of which are mentioned in the Schedule, are repealed.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the Minister, but I am sure he will appreciate that it would be a little unfortunate if it had gone forth from the House in his name that the 1946 Act and the Ribbon Development Act had been repealed, when, as he knows, they largely remain on the Statute Book.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement of Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts) Regulations, 1948, dated 25th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 25th May, be approved."
  9.26 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move,
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 14th May, be approved."
  These Regulations are the counterpart Regulations for Scotland to the previous Regulations which were passed for England.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Those of us who come from Scotland and who have listened patiently to the Debate all this evening will want to hear a little more as to how these Regulations will affect Scotland. Since you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled that we may refer briefly to omissions from the regulations, I must say from the Scottish point of view how much I regret that these regulations do not deal with minerals vested in the National Coal Board. It seems to me that to talk about minerals in the British Isles without talking about coal is like talking about Christmas without Santa Claus, this House without Mr. Speaker or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning without the Minister.
  1954
  In Scotland we have the frightful problem of the restoration of the ground after opencast workings, and I should have thought that in regulations concerning the working of minerals we ought to have some provision made for the restoration of the ground, not only after coal workings. In England there is the problem, to a greater degree than in Scotland, of iron ore, of gravel and of brick earth, china clay and slate—all these minerals are taken out of mother earth and the surface left disturbed. There is nothing in these regulations to provide for the restoration of that surface. With that exception I think it is true to say that none of us have any major objection to these regulations, though there are still some points upon which we should like further elucidation from the Lord Advocate or whoever replies to this Debate.
  As I see it, the procedure after 1st July, 1951, in respect of land used for the mining of any type of minerals within the ambit of the Act and these regulations, will be that the Central Land Board will assess the development charge and that, in accordance with Regulation 8 (1) it will probably be an annual payment based upon the value of the minerals extracted; in other words, it will be upon a royalty basis. Then the Railway and Canal Commission will deduct the amount of that charge from the payments due to the royalty owner from the mineral worker under the existing lease. It becomes clear that the amount of the development charge is of material concern to the royalty owner and the mineral worker.
  I was glad to hear that the royalty owner is to be given the opportunity of making representations to the Central Land Board at the time the development charge is assessed. What I was not clear about, and what I hope the Lord Advocate will make clear, is whether the Central Land Board will inform the royalty owner of the development charge that is proposed in order to enable him to make representations about the amount of the charge if he desires to do so. In theory, the process will result in the royalty owner receiving a bare agricultural rental for his land. It looks to me as if he is going to be deprived of the whole of the value of the minerals. I

  1955
  have arrived at that conclusion because it seems that the development charge will be assessed purely in relation to the rental value of the existing use of land before extraction and the value of the mineral extracted.
  If that is so, it seems that he will be dealt with very inequitably for two reasons. The first reason is that a royalty owner is obliged to employ agents and a staff to supervise his mineral interests upon a scale appreciably higher than an owner of ordinary agricultural land. Secondly, it is because mineral leases include an element in respect of deterioration in the value of land after the extraction of minerals. How can these factors be allowed for if the development charge is assessed, as I think it will be, purely in relation to the bare rental value of the land for its existing use and the value of the minerals extracted based upon the royalties?
  I do not know, but I hope it is possible that the whole thing can be adjusted under Regulation 9 (1) and I ask the Lord Advocate if that is so. Is it true that as a royalty owner has a larger staff of advisers than the owner of ordinary agricultural land and has to make some allowance for the restoration of the ground that that will be taken into consideration by the Tribunal, who are given the task under Regulation 9 (1) of varying the rental as far as may be just having regard to the amount of the development charge? Is that the kind of consideration which the Government have in mind in asking the House to agree to Regulation 9 (1) in the way in which it is worded?
  9.35 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) first sought an explanation as to why the minerals worked by the National Coal Board had not been brought within the ambit of these regulations. These regulations are made under Section 78 of the Scottish Act, and Section 78 (6) expressly excludes minerals which are vested in the National Coal Board. Since the Act itself expressly excludes the minerals so vested by virtue of the Section under which these regulations are made it would be manifestly impossible to incorporate them into the regulations.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was only expressing my regret.
  The Lord Advocate: If I may say so, the hon. Member is a little late in expressing that regret. It should have been expressed when the Act was before us, not when we are considering the regulations.
  The other points which were raised by the hon. Member come back to the restoration of the land and the interpretation of Regulation 9 (1). I will not, brevitatis causa, repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend in relation to the restoration of the land because I do not wish to detain the House, but when we come to Regulation 9 (1) I think it is conceived that so far as existing leases are concerned a royalty might be paid which would in fact be directed in two directions, one to meet the overheads which the royalty owner might himself have to meet, the other going in profits to the royalty owner. In respect of the royalty owner's claim on the £300 million part of that must manifestly disappear but he may still be entitled, under his contractual rights under the lease, to that proportion of the royalty which was earmarked to meet overhead charges. The power which is given to the tribunal under Regulation 9 (1) is to vary the terms of the existing lease in order to modify the right to royalty payable. That cannot affect a future lease; it only affects an existing lease.
  What the Central Land Board will or will not do is essentially a question for that Board and directions cannot be given from this House as to how they will compute any particular claim. As hon. Members will recollect, it is laid down in the Act that only general principles can be applied and that the Central Land Board will work within those general principles. When the regulations expanding that aspect were recently before the House they were again confined more or less to general principles to be followed in determining the existing use value, the development value and the development charge.
  Accordingly I do not think that I could express any view as to what the Central Land Board will do in any particular case except to have regard either to the directions in the Act under Section 67 (3) or to the directions in the regulations in paragraph 9 (1) to the effect, for instance, that

  1957
  they may vary the royalty payable under the lease
  "so far as may be just having regard to the amount of the development charge."
  These regulations are made under Section 78 of the Scottish Act which provides that:
  "the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations …"
  so that in dealing with minerals we can only adapt and modify the powers already created in the Act. The powers already created in the Act in reference to the computation of the development charge are conveyed in Section 67, Subsection (3) which says that in determining the development charge the regulations may prescribe general principles. If I may answer a point raised previously as to the question of vires, the question is answered by reference to the two Sections. If we are confined to general principles in determining the development charge, and the regulations may, under Section 78, have to be made subject to any modifications of the existing general principles, it would not be competent to go beyond the general principles which are being provided for and to give particular grounds for the charging of the restoration cost under the regulations.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think the right hon. Gentleman is answering a point which I raised, among others. Why should not there be a statement of a general principle that the Central Land Board has to pay attention in a certain way to the questions of amenities including the question of restoration? That seems to me perfectly general.
  The Lord Advocate: It is so general that it is not necessary to incorporate it in the regulations, because the Central Land Board must have regard to these factors, and particularly to the various factors which have to go to constitute the basis of the development charge. In view of the general powers which have been granted to them under the statute I think that to try and go from general principles in reference to this particular item might very well lead one into a provision of doubtful competency, and if one is in the region of a provision of doubtful competency, discretion indicates that one should not provide for it but should rely on the general principles already set out
  1958
  in the Act, the general principles to which reference has to be made and the general principles to which the Central Land Board must have regard. With that explanation I trust that the difficulties of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen have been resolved.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 14th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Modification of Mines Act) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, dated 13th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 14th May, be approved."—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Resolved:
  "That the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement of Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, dated 27th May, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 27th May, be approved."—[The Lord Advocate.]

  COAL INDUSTRY (SMALL MINES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I wish to raise the question of the small licensed coalmine. It is a platitude today to say that the country is in dire need of more and better coal; but it is the paradox of the situation today that while there is a great need for and a great dearth of coal, there are in the small mines in this country a considerable body of men, some 4,000 in number, and a considerable number of small and efficient units—some 340—which at the moment are either going out of production or are losing their men or going on half time. The amount of coal which could be produced, and which they have produced in the past, is something like a million tons a year. That amount is being denied to the country today, and there is this extraordinary situation of a declining output in these small mines when there should be a considerable increase, which would be of benefit to everyone.

  1959
  There is no need to stress the fact that there is a shortage of coal. There is a grave, almost critical situation, despite the rather false, almost ruthless complacency with which the Minister treated the whole matter a few days ago. That attitude compares oddly with some of the statements which have been put out. There was the statement demanding economy in electricity, and that demanding that people should use less coke. Again, there was the question of the Government having rejected the idea of increasing the domestic ration. In addition, in the City of Stoke-on-Trent only a few days ago a man was fined £15 for obtaining coal above his personal allocation by false pretences. All these things point to the great necessity for increased coal production. At the same time, we have the fantastic paradox that production is actually declining in these mines.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, and certainly some hon. Members opposite, have in their time attempted to denigrate—if one can denigrate a coalmine—the output from some of these small mines. I agree that it is difficult to generalise on some three or four hundred of these small units which employ between 30 and 40 and, in one or two cases, up to 80 men. However, I think that one can make one or two fair generalisations. Obviously the output and quality of coal vary from mine to mine. But one or two things bear consideration when hon. Members opposite, people in the National Union of Mineworkers, or others outside the House say that these units are not worth while. I do not support these units tonight merely because one has a regard for private initiative or enterprise, or because one has a liking for the small against the great mine. I support them because I believe that, for the production of coal in a certain way, they are the optimum unit, probably superior to the form of opencast mining.
  In order to examine the value of the coal being produced today from these mines, it is worth while to bear certain things in mind. First, on the question of cost, the coal produced from the small mines is, on the whole, the only coal produced in this country which is produced without a heavy subsidy in the form of
  1960
  loss or additional cost to the taxpayer or consumer. In point of fact, these small mines as a group, by means of differential royalties, rents, and all the other rather difficult means of payment, actually pay £100,000 a year and more to the Coal Board. I think that that can be said of very few other mining enterprises in the country today. Again, on the question of cost, I am informed that some of these small mines in private hands could undoubtedly at the moment compete, and compete effectively, with the coal which is being sold on the Continent today if they were not forced to pay the levy subsidy of 22s. 6d. per ton which all coal going out of this country has to pay.
  As to quality, I would like to quote from a letter which I have received from a manufacturer in Lancashire in reference to the coal supplied from a small colliery. This is a letter from a manufacturer who has a large industrial concern in Lancashire, and he says:
  "We analysed a sample of your fuel from each of the loads sent in, and, in each case, the ash content worked out at never more than 10 per cent. and the calorific value never less than 11,000 B.T.Us. In addition to this, the chemist showed us the analysis of a deep mine coal from a Lancashire colliery, of which they are having to take hundreds of tons weekly, which showed an ash content of 28 per cent. and a calorific value of never more than 9,000 B.T.Us."
  I suggest that that letter, on the question of quality, must be fairly telling, especially when we know the quality of some of the opencast coal which is used in industry today. In regard to the question of employment, hon. Gentlemen opposite who either come from North Staffordshire or know the conditions in Wales and elsewhere, where these small mines are scattered, will know that the people employed in them could not be employed in deep mining, so that there is no direct loss to the deep-mined output.
  Lastly, in rebutting this denigration of the small mines, let me say that the output from them is fairly high. In North Staffordshire, it is as much as 28 cwt. per man-shift, which is even higher than that for deep-mined coal. Further, may I say that responsibility for licensing mines depends upon the National Coal Board. If they license a mine, presumably they do it with their eyes open and with the intention and knowledge that that mine will be successful. These mines, if properly developed, could produce as much as two

  1961
  million tons of coal a year. At the moment, their output of one million tons a year is falling fairly rapidly.
  There are two main reasons why output is falling in these small mines and why they are not making a greater contribution to the national economy. First, there is grave uncertainty amongst these 4,000 men engaged in the 300 or 400 pits as to how long these licences are to hold. They were issued for six months, and there was a promise given earlier this year that they would be renewed in July of this year. Now we are told that they will be reviewed in January. The point I am making is that it is impossible for anyone to instal machinery, and especially the essential screening machinery, for any coalmine under these conditions, and no capitalist, unless he is an ass, is prepared to take risks if there is no security of tenure whatever. It is up to the Coal Board to reassure them and to cease acting like an all-embracing octopus. The Coal Board shows few of the characteristics of the giant squid; far more it resembles a large jelly fish, unable to make a decision, though retaining the one characteristic of a large sting in its tail for the taxpayer.
  Then, there is the question of the responsibility of the National Coal Board. The second thing which is reducing overall output is undoubtedly the system of allocation for which the Ministry is responsible. When the Minister the other day spoke so complacently, he was defending his own child—or that of his predecessor—the National Coal Board. But tonight I wish to speak of this allocation as a purely Ministerial responsibility. The rationing and distribution of coal are the responsibility of the Minister through the various channels, from the committee here in London—in my case in North Staffordshire—down to Manchester, from Manchester to the North-Western Council, and from the North-Western Council down to the coal supply office. But the directives all come from the Minister in London. Those directives of supply are such that at the moment, owing to rationing, there is being built up in this country a large quantity of small coal which cannot be consumed—the Minister admitted the other day that it amounted to 50,000 tons a week—not for lack of demand, but because it is an artificial surplus which has been created
  1962
  by the regulations of the Ministry in London.
  We have seen the whole trend of the 1930's reversed in the most extraordinary manner, so that today we are faced with unobtainable plenty in the midst of dearth. What a triumph of planning! This 50,000 tons a week—it is 2½ million tons a year—paradoxically enough, is not being consumed, for a variety of reasons, the chief of which I believe to be this system of allocation and the refusal of the Minister to carry out the necessary de-rationing of small coal which would lead to greater output and would especially affect the small mines. The small mines are undoubtedly at a disadvantage. If there is a surplus of coal it is natural that the officials at the Ministry allocate coal which is drawn, not from the small mines but from either the National Coal Board or from the opencast mines which are the responsibility of the Ministry. In the coal supply offices, the regional supply boards and so forth there is a national bias in favour of deep-mined coal and opencast coal, because those are intimately connected with the boss of these officials, and the boss is the Minister himself. Therefore, injustice is done whereby the regulations, automatically and naturally, favour the deep-mined and the opencast coal as against the small mine. I do not say that the small mine can make an immense contribution, but at this time any contribution should be accepted, welcomed and worked for. A contribution of 2 million tons of coal a year is not a mere bagatelle. These regulations favour the N.C.B. and the opencast coal.
  I now come to a most difficult point; that is, the question of whether or not there has been a breach of faith between the National Coal Board and the small mines. When these licences were issued by the National Coal Board to the small mines, it was laid down that the coal from these small mines would be distributed through the channels of the National Coal Board. That arrangement operated until May of this year. In May of this year the National Coal Board declared that they were no longer responsible for the distribution of this coal, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in a letter to the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross), went so far as to say that the small mines

  1963
  should arrange to dispose of the coal themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that it is physically impossible and against the law for anyone to dispose of coal in this country except through the direction of the Central Committee of the Ministry in London, working through the coal supply offices and the other offices. It is like stamping on the face of a man when he is down to tell these people to dispose of their own coal.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  Mr. Fraser: I repeat what I said—it is stamping on the face of a man who is down. It is impossible for these small people to dispose of their coal except with the support of the coal supply officers and officials—in Wales and other areas one hears the same thing—and that support was not forthcoming and they were told that they had to dispose of it themselves.
  I know other hon. Members wish to speak and I apologise for taking up so much time. There are, however, one or two things which I would suggest to remedy this situation. The first is on the distributive side, which is now basically the responsibility of the Minister. There should be a directive sent out to see that the consumers' interests are put first, whether the coal comes from the National Coal Board's mines, the opencast mines or from the small mines. We should see that the Consumer Councils are really operative and that the supply officers and other officers of the Ministry see that the coal which is supplied is the best coal available, and not necessarily coal which happens to be opencast or N.C.B. coal.
  Beyond that, there are certain other recommendations which I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is that there is a considerable chance now of stock piling some of this coal from the small mines. That has been taking place on a large scale for opencast mines. Last year, at this time of the year, the quantity of opencast mine coal stocked on the site, or in stocks for stock piling, was, I think, 80,000 tons of saleable coal and 61,000 tons of lower quality coal,
  1964
  presumably not saleable, although why non-saleable coal was stocked heaven only knows. This year the figures are 860,000 tons of saleable coal and 160,000 tons of presumably unsaleable, or lower quality, coal. The coal from the small mines ought to be kept in some of these large dumps which are being built up all over the country.
  Here is another suggestion, and it arises from the question of a price cut. I know the Minister talked of that the other day and I know it is under consideration, so I will go no further on that point. I believe there are two things which could help, and one is to de-ration the small types of coal. If this country is to produce the really important coal to sell abroad—the large coal and the other more valuable types—there is bound to be a large amount of coal of the smaller type produced which today, under the present system of rationing, is non-saleable. If we like, we can call it the by-product of producing the best coal—it is marginal coal. Only in one way can the price of coal in this country come down, and that way surely is to de-ration and to allow further quantities of that smaller type of coal to go on to the civilian market.
  People are crying out for more coal in their homes, and that will absorb some of the coal which at the moment is surplus to requirements. It has happened with great success in Belgium, if I may add that in parenthesis. Nearly all the coal there has been knocked off the civilian ration, except, I think, the larger nuts, and doubles and various other qualities and types of coal. Lastly, I suggest there is one further course which should be adopted, and that is to de-ration locally. The Minister cannot come here and say that he is such a believer in his policy of misery that, where coal is available, produced by the skill of the people in that locality, that coal should not be allowed to go to the neighbouring industrialists and citizens. It seems to me absurd for that coal to be kept back.
  I am sure I have taken too long on this subject, but it is one which appeals to me and I am sure to many hon. Members in this House. There is in this country today coal which is not being dug for, I believe, two reasons. There is confusion and muddle in the Ministry's system in the allocation of coal, and on the part of the National Coal

  1965
  Board there is no lead as to what is to happen with the small mines. Given a lead and security of tenure they would produce at least another million tons of coal, and screening plant could be bought with which to make that coal as good as any other in the country, and better than coal from the opencast workings, for, because of the metabolism of Mother Earth, the coal drawn from the depths is infinitely superior to that scratched from the surface. These things can be put right, employment can be given to the men, and the country could benefit by having a million or two million tons of coal more a year.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I should like to support the plea of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). If the Parliamentary Secretary came to North Staffordshire, to the part in which I was born, bred and reared, he would see for himself the difficulties which confront the workmen in the small mines. It is true to say that 50 per cent.—if not more—of the men employed in the mines have been victims of nystagmus or of serious accidents in the deep mines. Consequently, they are not physically capable of performing the work the miners in North Staffordshire are expected to perform. The small mines are in the main in very isolated parts and that means that if a miner loses his employment, there is no other work to which he can go alternatively. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that it should be a very simple thing for the Ministry to agree that the owners of the small mines be allowed to sell their coal to whoever would purchase it to keep those men in employment.
  I cannot see the difference between allowing people—as the Ministry now permits—to acquire 40 cwt. of coke or 40 cwt. of anthracite, and allowing them to acquire 40 cwt. of coal from those mines. If he would lift the ban and case the rationing, so that people could buy that coal over and above the ration, it would mean not only full employment for the men, but it would mean easing the anxieties of domestic consumers. In those areas, the mining villages are old, and there is no other means of heating water than by the ordinary fire. Consequently, with all the need there is for coal in those parts, there is a constant struggle to eke out the present coal ration. The
  1966
  stocks which are piling up each week, and which I pass every time I go to my home, would be liquidated, I should say, within a week if the domestic consumers in the area were allowed to buy them. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise what such a concession would mean to the men. Some of them are old and can find no alternative employment. For the benefit of those men alone, apart altogether from the question of easing the situation for the domestic consumers, I hope my hon. Friend will find it possible to permit coal from those small mines to be sold off the ration.
  10.10 p.m.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: In the few moments left before the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) for ventilating an important question. It has turned the limelight on to something which to me, and, I think, to the country is obscure and unsatisfactory. There are some odd incidents going on in the treatment of these small mines. While I cannot expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to reply to this particular instance, I should be obliged if he would look into it. I cite it as an example of the sort of unsatisfactory thing that is going on at the present time.
  It is the case of a small mine in Scotland called the Langside Coal Company which employs 22 men. In January of this year, the company, not satisfied with the way in which explosives were being used, gave seven days' notice to the men in order to instal coal-cutting machinery. A few weeks afterwards, the company were informed by the National Coal Board that their licence would terminate on the expiry of its existing period, namely, in August of this year. The company protested, but could get no satisfactory explanation of why the licence should be terminated in August. It is perfectly true that in the first clause of the licence the contract or licence could be terminated on six months' notice, but Clause 26 says that in the event of disagreement or differences between the Board and the licensee, the matter shall be submitted to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed by the parties.

  1967
  The company has applied for that arbitration and has had no satisfaction. It is undesirable that the Coal Board should make use of one clause in the licence and not make use of another clause. It is the merest common form of justice that the company should be able to plead its own case and avoid the cost of litigation, because if no arbitration takes place, I understand that litigation is available. What is the chance of installing coal cutting machinery or of modernising these small mines if their security of tenure is limited to six months? That is a matter which wants to be reviewed and altered, if, indeed, it is intended that these mines should continue.
  I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—because we are all interested and many people in the country are interested—what is to happen to these mines when the licence has been terminated. Is it intended that the mines shall go out of production, or is it intended that the Coal Board shall take them over? If that is so, why were they not made the subject of legislation under the Coal Act?
  Mr. Speaker: The question of legislation is out of order on the Adjournment.
  Colonel Hutchison: I will conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is going to happen to these small mines if the licences are terminated. Are we to lose the coal, or are they to be managed in some other way?
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Mack: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) will not misunderstand me if I join issue with him on the suggested maladministration of the National Coal Board. I recognise that everything has not gone perfectly so far as they are concerned, but having regard to the immense task in front of them and their difficulties, I think that on balance they have done a good job. I am not critical in that sense.
  A great number of these small opencast mines and small mineowners are in my constituency. I have a letter from the Black Bank Colliery at Knutton. This colliery has been working for six years, and they have stocked up about 200 tons of fuel. Their orders have been stopped, and they have had to give their employees
  1968
  14 days' notice. Their output was four or five tons per man-shift. I understand that is a better output than in some of the larger collieries. They have been to see me, and I have been in communication with the National Coal Board and Lord Hyndley. I have discovered that one of the difficulties with which the Coal Board are faced is the quality, or lack of quality, of the coal. Many of the pits produce and sell coal of inferior quality. At some of these mines there is opencast coal which is particularly poor. There is foot-rail or drift-pit coal. In the case of one of these collieries the sale was cut by 50 per cent.
  I am told that if they have to close their pits it will be difficult to re-open them because of difficulties such as those connected with flooding. About 50 per cent. of the men—75 per cent. in some cases—are unfit for working in deep-pit coal-mining. If they remain in their present employment it will not affect the production of the more important deep-pit coal of which the country is so much in need. I have had a letter from one of my constituents, a practical miner, complaining bitterly in regard to this matter. He says:
  "The Government exhorts us to produce every ton of coal possible, yet these foot rails must cut production, even cease in some cases, because they are not allowed to sell their product, even if they can find customers. And yet the opencast sites continue to be opened, and while many who have spent a lifetime in mining face the prospect of unemployment, this opencast stuff continues to be produced at a cost out of all proportion to its commercial value."
  He demands that opencast coal mining should be the first to be cut, on grounds both of economy and quality. My final question to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he is prepared to explore the question which was put to him by preceding speakers that coal should be de-rationed so that it should not be wasted and that the community as a whole should benefit?
  10.18 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I wish to speak on the human side of the problem. I have known many of the men from the North Staffordshire Miners' Federation for more than 20 years. I know the type of man involved in this matter and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take into account the fact that

  1969
  70 per cent. of them are unfit for work in deep mines owing to industrial disease, age, or serious injury in other types of mining. It is difficult, if not impossible, for these men to obtain alternative employment. I am not concerned so much with the economic aspects of the matter, which can be exaggerated, as with the human aspect of it, which it is not possible to exaggerate. It is hardly possible to divorce the two aspects. For these reasons, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to find a way to accommodate these men under employers so that the industry may go on.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): We have had a rather interesting Debate on the Adjournment by reason of the extra time which has enabled hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends who have a very great interest in this matter, to deal with points which they have raised with me from time to time in correspondence. There is nothing in the Ministry's reaction to the small mine which is unfavourable, nor indeed is there an unfavourable reaction by the National Coal Board. There were a number of inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and I will pick up those as I deal with the points which have been made.
  It is true that the output of the small mines is about 2 million tons per annum and it represents 1 per cent. of the national output. I want to make it quite clear that there is no suggestion whatever that the whole of this output is being lost. We have been talking about North Staffordshire, where there is a peculiar problem in regard to the small mines. Between the week ending 24th April and the week ending 12th June, 21,000 tons of coal were produced from the small mines, and 19,000 tons of that coal was actually sold. There can be no question, even in North Staffordshire where there is a most difficult situation, of the whole of the output being lost.
  It should be made quite clear, too, that the quality of the coal from the small mines is fairly poor and, after all, consumers are refusing to take today what they were formerly prepared to take when there was a shortage of other coal. We
  1970
  have been able to build up fairly good industrial stocks and so industrial consumers are rather turning against this fairly poor quality coal mined from the small mines. There is a lack of screening facilities, to which hon. Gentlemen have referred, and consequently, in North Staffordshire particularly, we are not getting large and graded coal, which makes it difficult coal to sell.
  I want to make this point very clear, because the hon. Member for Stone is evidently under a very grave misapprehension. He made a fairly alarming statement that the National Coal Board were preventing the sale of this coal to people who would buy it. I want to tell him and the House that the National Coal Board do no such thing. The small mine owner can sell his coal to anybody he likes in this country, except the domestic consumer. With regard to the example referred to by the hon. Gentleman, where there was an analysis showing an ash content of less than 10 per cent., and the manufacturer said that he was getting a worse ash content from deep-mined coal, with the intimation that he would buy the small mined coal if possible, there is nothing to stop the manufacturer doing so. It is off the ration. In the main the reason it is not bought is that it is inferior in quality. It is no use the hon. Gentleman making a point that opencast coal is inferior because the small mines coal goes very much deeper. It does not. We go down 150 or more feet for opencast coal but obviously, as the small mine coal varies in quality from place to place, so does the opencast.
  We cannot agree that anybody should be exporting poor quality coal from this country. It may well be that a buyer abroad would be very glad to take some of this inferior coal, but we do not know what he would do with it when he got it—at a price. He might mix it with very good quality coal sent from this country and thus undermine the standard of the British coal which we are selling abroad. Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that we cannot afford to have the standard of quality of coal which we are sending abroad undermined by reason of any mixing on the other side. We must be careful about the quality of coal which we export, in the interests of our markets abroad both now and in the future.

  1971
  What, then, is the real problem? The problem is that there is being built up a quantity of coal mined from the small mines for which at the moment there is not a market. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said that if this coal was freed from the domestic ration, they would clear their stocks in a short time—
  Mr. Fernyhough: In a week.
  Mr. Robens: That is a useful suggestion and it shows how the minds of the Minister and my hon. Friends work closely together, because that is in our minds, too. I can tell the House now that there is a little problem about it because, if we release on to the market a large amount of low-grade coal, we want to be assured that consumers are not sold this coal for better quality coal. Neither do we want it mixed; so we have to be careful how we deal with it.
  The hon. Member talked about using the Consumers Council. We thought about that, too. In fact we have put it up to the Consumers Council, which is to give this matter consideration on Wednesday of next week. If its views are along the lines of saying that this would be a welcome addition to the domestic consumer, as long as it is off the ration, my right hon. Friend will be well disposed to give it very favourable consideration. So we will wait to see what the Consumers Council say about this matter, because it will be concerned about the protection of the consumer, as is its duty, and it will give us sound advice. We will consider that advice and what has been said this evening, and it may be that as a result we shall see a betterment of the situation.
  I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for South Edinburgh—
  Colonel Hutchison: No, Central Glasgow. One is the capital of Scotland; the other only thinks it is.
  Mr. Robens: I am sorry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of a certain Scottish small mine. I do not know the details of it and I am sure he would not expect me to be able to give an answer tonight. I will certainly look into that, and I will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving the facts of the situation as we see them.
  One last and important point was that these mines, if they want continuity of selling the coal they produce, must produce a better quality coal, and will of necessity have to do as they have done in other parts of the country—put in screening plant and so on. The substance of the argument was about what security of tenure the small mine owners have if they do so. I would say to the small mine owner that, if he is placed in that situation and is prepared to consider putting in machinery in order to turn out a better graded product so that there shall be continuity of sale, he should consult with the marketing officer of the National Coal Board. I can assure him that he will have complete satisfaction in relation to tenure if the proposals in relation to capital and quality of the coal coming from the mine are in line with the grading policy already agreed upon.
  The questions revolves around the grading of coal, not only for this but for other matters, too, and the pricing of that coal. The Coal Board are engaged on this grading and re-pricing, and I hope it will not be long now before my right hon. Friend will be able to make some announcement about that. I hope I have said sufficient to bring some degree of hope and comfort to hon. Members who have raised this matter, and to the owners of the small mines. We have had a good discussion, and again I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licensing Scheme
  Building Licensing Scheme
  House of Commons (Picture)
  House of Commons (Picture)
  Research Station, Harwell (Labourers)
  Research Station, Harwell (Labourers)
  Cement Supplies
  Cement Supplies
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  Building Industry (Working Party)
  Building Industry (Working Party)
  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (REFUGEES)
  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (REFUGEES)
  GERMANY (PARCELS)
  GERMANY (PARCELS)
  U.S.A. (BRITISH GOODS)
  U.S.A. (BRITISH GOODS)
  ROUMANIA AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (PUBLICATIONS)
  ROUMANIA AND CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (PUBLICATIONS)
  GREECE (MR. STEPHEN BARBER)
  GREECE (MR. STEPHEN BARBER)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fruit and Vegetables Organisation
  Fruit and Vegetables Organisation
  Norwegian Herring
  Norwegian Herring
  Fresh Fruit (Restaurants)
  Fresh Fruit (Restaurants)
  Grain Requirements, Asia
  Grain Requirements, Asia
  Barley Exports (Eire)
  Barley Exports (Eire)
  Milk (Churn Measures)
  Milk (Churn Measures)
AGRICULTURE
  County Committees' Accounts
  County Committees' Accounts
  Forestry (Advisory Committees' Reports)
  Forestry (Advisory Committees' Reports)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imported Dutch Vegetables
  Imported Dutch Vegetables
  Builders' Pencils
  Builders' Pencils
SHIPPING
  Bunkering, Parkeston
  Bunkering, Parkeston
  R.M.S. "Almanzora"
  R.M.S. "Almanzora"
  Repairs (Foreign Countries)
  Repairs (Foreign Countries)
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  London Docks Strike
  London Docks Strike
ROADS
  Roadmen, Aberdeen
  Roadmen, Aberdeen
  Ferries (Committee's Recommendations)
  Ferries (Committee's Recommendations)
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Dismissed Fitter)
  Royal Ordnance Factory (Dismissed Fitter)
  Supersonic Rocket Aircraft
  Supersonic Rocket Aircraft
  Aluminium Purchases
  Aluminium Purchases
  Iron and Steel Subsidy
  Iron and Steel Subsidy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Spain (Trade and Payments Agreement)
  Spain (Trade and Payments Agreement)
  Publication "Harvest Home"
  Publication "Harvest Home"
  Tea Subsidy
  Tea Subsidy
  PRISONS (PERIODICALS)
  PRISONS (PERIODICALS)
  ARMED FORCES (DEMOBILISATION CLOTHING)
  ARMED FORCES (DEMOBILISATION CLOTHING)
  INDIA (COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE, MR. A. R. SANDFORD)
  INDIA (COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE, MR. A. R. SANDFORD)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Assyrians (Pensions)
  Assyrians (Pensions)
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
COAL INDUSTRY
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Output and Sales (Difference)
  Output and Sales (Difference)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD AMMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE DOCK STRIKE.
  4.5 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make on the progress of the dock strike.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess, I think the best course is to repeat the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place this afternoon. The Prime Minister said:
  "The number of those on strike in the London Docks this morning is 19,040. 5,877 dockers are at work. The general build-up of the Service Personnel is proceeding according to plan, and approximately 1,000 members of the Services are now engaged in the clearance of food cargoes. Members of the Services have cleared all the perishable foodstuffs, and from this morning the meat ships now lying in the port are being discharged in order to maintain the largest possible proportion of
  2
  carcase meat in this week's and next week's ration. The full ration of one shilling's worth of meat will be made up with canned corned meat in each case, Bacon and butter are also being discharged. It will be necessary to move other food cargoes lying in the ports, in order to avoid a breakdown in the distribution of other foodstuffs.
  The stoppage extended this morning to the docks at Liverpool arid Birkenhead where, out of a total labour force of 16,000, it is reported that upwards of 4,000 dockers are on strike.
  In these circumstances, His Majesty, who is in Scotland on a Royal Tour, has been advised to issue a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, declaring that a state of emergency exists, and a Privy Council will be held for the purpose later to-day. Thereafter Orders in Council will be made giving powers to the Government to do all that is necessary both by deploying Service personnel wherever required for the maintenance of essential food supplies, and by the requisition of equipment for the maintenance of the life of the community. These regulations, as the House knows, are subject to an affirmative Resolution within seven days. Full use will be made of Service personnel in order to maintain the distribution of the food of the people and the economic life of the community.
  The irresponsible action of a section of the workers is endangering the regular supply of food to the people and is inflicting grave injuries on the nation."

  3
  The Prime Minister added:
  "I propose to make a broadcast speech at nine o'clock this evening, so that the nation may understand fully what is at stake."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the House will have heard with deep regret the serious statement that has been made by the Leader of the House. The Government may like to know that they can be assured of the support of noble Lords who sit on these Benches in any measure which they think it necessary to take in order to secure food and necessities for the British people. We shall, of course, wish to study the regulations when they come before this House, but we shall study them in a sympathetic spirit. I hope, too, that all possible means are being taken to make clear to the men concerned both the injury which they are doing to the country and the deplorable effect which is being created upon world opinion by irresponsible action at the present time.

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 16th instant, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 16th instant, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (AIRMEN) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (MARINERS) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AIRMEN) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL.
  4.11 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, this is a small Bill, but, I suggest to your Lordships, an extremely important one. It is designed to provide assistance to our fishing industries and to help to procure those fish which are so necessary to the diet of our people. A major part of this Bill deals with the question of overfishing. As your Lordships probably know, before 1939 overfishing had become particularly bad in the North Sea and the catches were decreasing to such an extent that it looked as though fishing would no longer be a commercial proposition. Something had to be done about it. The War then intervened, and we had hoped that the resting of the fishing grounds during the war years would have increased the stocks of fish so that we could have gone on fishing for a considerable time without any appreciable depletion. It is true that in 1946 very large catches were taken out of the sea. But towards the end of 1946 and 1947 catches again began to go down, and it became quite obvious that, unless some measures were taken we would arrive at the same position as was reached in 1939.

  5
  As your Lordships know, a Conference was convened in 1946 to discuss this problem, the nations attending being all those actually concerned in fishing in the North Sea. This Conference eventually drew up a Convention which recommended an increase in the size of the meshes of nets. There was no difference of opinion in the Conference as to the desirability of taking very energetic measures to conserve the fishery; where the difficulty arose was in deciding what measures to take, as naturally many points of view were put forward. But it was finally agreed that enlarging the size of mesh would have an extremely beneficial effect and this proposal was adopted. The Overfishing Convention of 1946 has been ratified by His Majesty's Government and the Governments of Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden, while ratification is still awaited from Belgium, Eire, France, Iceland, Portugal and Spain. It is earnestly hoped that these countries will conclude and ratify the Convention at an early date.
  In order to comply with the terms of the Convention we ourselves have had to take powers to regulate the size of mesh in territorial waters as well as outside such waters. It so happens that the various conditions of fishing of other nations make this necessary in order to obtain agreement on the matter. Therefore, under Clause 1 of this Bill we take powers so that the local fishery committees can inspect boats to examine the sizes of the mesh of nets, and if necessary can institute proceedings against the owners of the boats. It should be pointed out that in all cases the master of the boat will be given every opportunity to be present if and when such an inspection takes place. That, I think, is the main and perhaps the most useful part of the Convention. It was proposed to take further steps, but here a difficulty arose because, although, as. I said before, there was general agreement as to the necessity of taking measures, there was considerable disagreement as to the exact nature of the steps to be taken. In fact, beyond this question of the size of the mesh, no other point could be agreed.
  After a good deal of discussion, however, the various nations agreed to follow lines of action which the scientists confirmed would be more or less equivalent to each other; for example, one nation
  6
  agreed to enlarge the size of its mesh; another, to close certain grounds for certain months, and so on. Our own undertaking was that we should not allow the size of our fishing fleet to be increased beyond 85 per cent. of the pre-war figure. This is a good deal larger than the fishing fleet as it exists to-day, and although perhaps, at first sight, your Lordships might question this provision, I would emphasise how extremely important, yet how difficult, it is to secure agreement on this subject. I may say that this Convention has been agreed and signed by the following countries: Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and France, and also by His Majesty's Government. We are still awaiting acceptances from Belgium, Eire, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland. I am sure your Lordships will be with me in wishing that the signatures of these countries may be obtained in the shortest possible time so that we can go ahead with the necessary work.
  Much preparatory work will have to be done in order to institute a system of licensing to keep down our fleet to this figure of 85 per cent. Therefore, powers are taken in Clause 2 for the licensing of British boats fishing for white fish in the North. Sea. Boats fishing for herrings are not included, because there is no problem of overfishing of herrings. It has been agreed to exempt certain boats not used by way of trade or business, and the Ministers also have power to exempt other types of boats. Boats engaged on research of different kinds would, naturally, not come under this Bill. Small boats of forty feet and under, or boats fishing for mackerel, sprats, pilchards, herrings, shell fish or salmon will not have to be licensed. The appointed day for this order to come into operation will be fixed by the Ministers when they are satisfied that other countries are taking other appropriate steps. The Report of the Standing Advisory Committee which made the recommendations on this subject has been published in Command Paper 7387.
  I will pass from those matters, which I hope will meet with a certain measure of agreement, to the inshore fishing industry. This is the next subject with which the Bill deals. Although a relatively small industry it provides excellent fish and also a considerable amount of employment for the men round our coasts.

  7
  Clause 3 provides more money for the purpose of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945. As your Lordships will remember, this Act provided that grants up to a total of £500,000, and loans up to £800,000, should be made to fishermen in order to buy boats and gear. At the time these provisions were made it was expected that these sums would be enough to last up to December, 1950. Two things, however, have happened. I am glad to say that fishermen have built larger boats, which will allow them to remain longer at sea. On the other hand, I am sorry to say, costs and expenses have gone up considerably.
  These factors have necessitated increasing to £1,000,000 the amount for grants, and to £1,800,000 the amount for loans. I think your Lordships will remember that assistance under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, was limited to vessels not exceeding seventy feet in length and fifty tons gross. It is also interesting to note that some 920 fishermen have received assistance to purchase 182 new boats and 41 Admiralty fishing vessels, while 269 second-hand boats have been purchased or reconditioned. In 1947 the inshore fishermen of Great Britain landed over 1,750,000 cwt. of highest quality fish, a little over 10 per cent. of the total quantity of white fish caught by British fishing vessels. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that these prospective grants and loans are well worth while.
  Clause 4 provides for loans to fishermen's co-operatives—a highly desirable development which we want to encourage. Clause 5 deals with the herring industry, and increases by £1,250,000 the amount of grants which may be made by Ministers to the Board. Of this sum, £1,000,000 will be required for new projects for converting herring to meal and oil. Obviously, this is very necessary and will help to ease the position as regards animal feeding-stuffs. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 provides for the payment of the salaries of the Board from monies provided by Parliament. This should give the Board that measure of independence which we believe is necessary if the interests of consumers are to be safeguarded. Clause 6 merely removes the limitation of 200,000 placed on the amount of the Herring Marketing Fund. This sum, of course,
  8
  comes within the £1,700,000 already provided by the Herring Industry Act, and no new financial provision is involved. In view of the loss of some of our foreign markets we have to maintain an energetic policy, and the removal of the limitation on this Fund will, I think, assist the herring industry in carrying out their plans.
  Clause 7 gives Ministers the initiative in preparing schemes. It should be pointed out that all concerned will be given full opportunity of expressing their views, and schemes must be laid before Parliament for approval. Clause 8 provides that Ministers may give directions to the Board of a general character on matters affecting the national interest. Clause 10 brings the Minister of Food into the picture—into formal relationship with the Board which was set up before the war. With the other Ministers, he shares responsibility for preparing or amending schemes and the giving of directions to the Board.
  I suggest to your Lordships that this, though a small measure, is a most important one for the fishing industry. It should lead to the conserving of stocks of fish in the North Sea, which is an extremely necessary thing to do. It provides for the assistance of the inshore fishing industry, and will encourage the development of, and enterprise in, the herring industry. Owing to the fact that the industry has lost some of its traditional markets, it will need that encouragement. Therefore, I suggest that this is a much-needed Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a speedy passage through this House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  4.24 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain you on this Bill for any great length of time. Its provisions have been laid before your Lordships with great clarity by the noble Earl. He described it as a "small Bill," but it is small, I think, only in the sense that it is virtually agreed. Any of us who realises the size of the industry which we are discussing will know that we are dealing with an industry which is of immense importance. I am not sure how many noble Lords, or how many people in the country realise that, whereas

  9
  before the war we as a country imported from South America something like 500,000 tons of meat per annum, we were eating something over 1,000,000 tons of fish. That gives some idea of the scope of this problem. Your Lordships all know that this problem is not new; so far back, I think, as 1933, I myself piloted through the first fishing Bill dealing with this subject.
  There is only one point that I should like to make as a caveat—to some extent, the noble Earl dealt with it—namely, that this Bill can hope to have an effect only on our own sea-fishing industry. It is most important that we should not do anything to restrict the efforts or the takings of fishermen in this country unless we are absolutely sure that any such sacrifices will be made effective by the full cooperation of other nations. The noble Earl has said that the Minister does not intend to decide the appointed date until other nations have come in. I would ask: Suppose they do not? In that event, the problem still remains. If the noble Earl can tell us what steps the Government intend to make to meet that problem, I think it will be helpful. Whether it is practicable for us to cease taking the fish of these other nations, or whether we are at present in a position to refuse anybody's fish, I do not know.
  With regard to the other clauses of the Bill, especially that making provision for the development of the herring industry and oil and meal, I would mention just this point. Obviously, we want to see this oil and meal processing pushed forward so far as possible; but I sometimes wonder whether we have, even yet, taken sufficient trouble to see that—as distinct from processing herring—there is the fullest possible consumption of herring as a food. Apart from those two questions, I cordially, commend this Bill to your Lordships as a thoroughly workmanlike measure.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I venture to agree with the noble Earl opposite that this is by no means a small Bill. Indeed, I do not think that its importance can be exaggerated. It is of tremendous importance to the fishing industry of this country. I had the honour for some years to represent the greatest fishing port in the world, and I
  10
  learned something about the industry apart from previous knowledge gained at sea myself. I would remind your Lordships that not only does the fishing industry of this country supply excellent nourishing food, and provide a great deal of employment; it also provides a most valuable Reserve for he Royal Navy. What we should have done without the trawler men and drifter crews in the First and Second World Wars I do not know—and I can speak with some experience of the First World War. These men were an irreplaceable source of strength to the Royal Navy and their vessels themselves were of great value.
  I must apologise to the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill for not having given him previous notice of the one or two points I am venturing to raise. The reason for that is that I have been out of the country, and did not have an opportunity to let him know that I proposed to speak on these points. The crux of the prosperity of the fishing industry—this matter is not dealt with in the Bill, though I know it is very much in the minds of the Government—is transport: transport from the ports in suitable vehicles, refrigerating tracks and so on, to the inland districts. Until that problem is solved, we shall have continually the scandal of gluts of fish, on the one hand, and, on the other, the inland districts badly needing fresh fish. The problem has never really been properly tackled. I myself have been hammering at this for many years. I was Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Party on Deep Sea Fishing for some years, and this was one of the matters with which we always tried to deal. Much still requires to be done, although there has been some improvement. Now that the railways and road haulage are national undertakings, it should be easier to tackle this long-standing question. In the past, the railway companies have said "We cannot provide more refrigerated trucks because they are used only for a certain time of the year, and it would take too long to amortise the cost." Now, we can look at it from the national point of view, and I hope that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will be sympathetic towards providing this necessary improvement in the means of transporting fish.

  11
  The aeroplane could be used far more for carrying fresh fish. In 1939, I flew from Sydney to Singapore in an Imperial Airways machine. The tail of that machine was filled with Australian oysters on ice going to Malaya. When we reached Singapore, I had the pleasure of eating some of those oysters, which were in excellent condition. That was in 1939. They were transported over an immense distance. In the interval since then, aircraft have become more reliable and cheaper. It should be possible to utilise air transport for fish to a far greater extent than is now practised. So much for transport. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, spoke about overfishing. It is, of course, well known that but for the two world wars, which gave a " holiday " to the North Sea, there would now be a serious depletion of the fishing grounds. It was the Hull trawlers which led the way to new fishing grounds off Iceland, Bear Island, and the White Sea. They were the pioneers there, and they were continually having to have faster and more seaworthy trawlers as they went further and further afield. We started fishing off the West Coast of Africa and also off the Spanish coast. I am glad that certain measures will now be taken to avoid overfishing.
  I have one specific question which I should like to put to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon. The Bill gives power to fishing committees to inspect the nets of fishing vessels in ports, to see that they are not fishing with too small a mesh. That applies to British fishing vessels. Does it apply to foreign fishing vessels which sometimes use our ports for handling fish? Shall we have the right to inspect the nets of these vessels, and to take steps if they are fishing with too small a mesh? It will be very hard on our fishermen if the foreign fishing vessels are allowed to proceed with their nets not inspected. In any case, foreign fishermen are not over-welcomed by the fishermen in our ports, but will it be fair on our own fishermen if foreign vessels are to be entirely free from inspection? That is a specific question which I think is most important. I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer it.
  I particularly welcome the better arrangements to be made for the orderly marketing of the herring catch. That is a good example of national planning
  12
  which should be a great boon to the highly important herring industry. My noble friend also mentioned—and it is referred to in the Bill—the question of better arrangements for the extraction of oil and other by-products from fish. There again, Hull has been the pioneering port in that respect. We were the first to build two fine modern factories for using surplus gluts of fish, and fish that had been spoiled, for manufacture into cattle food and for extracting oil. We are only at the beginning of the more scientific use of fish for the extraction of oil. It is a most valuable foodstuff. In another place, I see that several interested Members referred to the great ground-nuts scheme in Africa, and compared it with the proposals for extracting oil from our own fish from our own waters. While I do not in any way attack the ground-nuts scheme, for I think it is a splendid scheme, we have in the fish around our coasts a great, though neglected, source of edible oil in various forms.
  A scheme of this sort has grown up in South Africa. There, a great industry, utilising small sharks, has grown up. Fleets of fishing boats go out; they catch many hundreds of small sharks. And from the livers of these fish is extracted a valuable oil which is sold all over the world and which has great nutritional value. That is the sort of thing which can be done with fish that are unpopular or are not easily marketed, but which contain valuable oil products that can be extracted or which again can be turned into very valuable cattle food. I join with the noble Earl who spoke for the Opposition in giving a general welcome to this Bill. It received a general welcome in another place. I am certain that it will do a great deal for the fishing industry of this country.
  4.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am extremely pleased with the friendly welcome that this Bill has received from all sides of the House. I feel sure that everyone recognises that it is a most useful measure. I should like, if I may, to answer some of the questions that were raised in the course of the speeches made by the noble Earl opposite and by my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, who sits on these Benches. The first question was, What will happen if the

  13
  other nations do not ratify the Agreement? I suggest to your Lordships that this is perhaps a case where it is better not to jump your fence before you come to it. We have no reason to suppose that the other nations will not ratify the Agreement. Certainly, there have been no indications that they will not. We are trying to urge them to ratify the Agreement as quickly as possible, but if they do not, obviously we shall have to think again in terms of what food supplies there are, what the world conditions are, and so on. We have no real reason, however, for fearing that these other countries will not ratify the Agreement. Then the noble Lord who sits on this side of the House raised the question of transport. That, of course, is an extremely important matter and is one in which much remains to be done. I am glad to say that there is a committee upon which the Ministry of Transport are represented, which is at present considering steps to improve the transport of fish throughout the country. In particular, they are looking to the procurement of more refrigerated trucks, but they are also considering any other measures which might improve transport. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, delighted us with a story of oysters being carried by aeroplane. I must say that it certainly whetted my appetite, particularly the mention of the oysters being on ice.
  Certainly I think there is a big chance of developing the production of oil from fish, herring more than any other kind, because herring are available in almost unlimited quantities. I cannot quite recollect the last point raised by the noble Lord——
  LORD STRABOLGI: I raised the question of the inspection of the nets of foreign fishing vessels.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The answer to that is that we do not inspect foreign fishing vessels in our ports. Altogether, it is an extremely difficult question, but we think it wiser, generally speaking, to allow countries to inspect their own boats. We hope to have a thorough co-operation in regard to policing the waters. We have considered schemes for a sort of international police but we hope to leave the actual inspection and policing of boats as much as
  14
  possible to the nations concerned. We are hopeful that we shall get some measure of reciprocity on that subject. I do not want to keep your Lordships any longer on this question. I feel that there is a large measure of agreement about this Bill and I now ask that you will give it a speedy Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  EGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
  WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  House adjourned at 20 minutes before five o'clock.
  [From the Minutes of Thursday, June 24, 1948.]

  MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with amendments.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Third Report from the Joint Committee, being the Report on the Statute Law Revision Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence together with the Proceedings of the joint Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.