Sitting of 18 November 1948

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

    Schools, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the conditions in primary schools in Gloucestershire; and what action is being taken for their systematic repair and alteration.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am informed that the local education authority have drawn up a comprehensive programme of work of repairs and improvements to schools.
    Mr. Parkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county have carried out a survey which is probably the first of its kind to be carried out with such thoroughness, and will he give every encouragement and support to measures to overcome these appalling conditions in rural schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I have already asked the authorities to get on as fast as possible with the supplies of labour and materials that are available, and I am expecting that we shall achieve improvement—minor improvement, at any rate—in existing schools.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the authority in question has taken very forward steps to provide secondary education? Is he satisfied that sufficient priority is being given to primary schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: My attention has only just been called to this new survey which has been made of primary schools. It brings them into line with what is being done in the secondary schools.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that his Department
    526
    will give all the facilities it can to enable an authority to get the requisite labour and materials?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, within the limits that are laid down for the Department.

    School Canteen, Ilkley
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that it has taken over two years to build a canteen at the Ilkley-Ben Rhydding primary school; what have been the causes of the delay; what is now holding up its completion; and when the canteen is likely to be ready for use.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the regrettable delay in the completion of this canteen has been due mainly to the pressure of housing and other work on the contractor, and to slow deliveries of certain equipment. I am informed that it will be brought into use for school meals next Monday.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his own Department has been building this canteen, or the Ministry of Works? If it has been his own Department, would it not have been built quicker by the Ministry of Works? Is there lack of liaison between the two Departments?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Neither my Department nor the Ministry of Works built that canteen.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Who did?

    Visits and Exchanges
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the improved feeling of goodwill created among the nations by the interchange of school children between the schools on the Continent and this country; and what steps he is taking to extend this principle for the Summer of 1949.
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to arrange further exchanges of youth leaders with continental and other countries.
    Mr. Tomlinson: My Department has recently made a grant towards the establishment of the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges by the Educational Co-operating Body for U.N.E.S.C.O. The Central Bureau is now primarily responsible for educational ex-

    527
    changes of all kinds, and there is good reason to believe that the volume of exchanges will increase next year.
    Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend get into touch with the various Governments on the Continent with a view to making the exchanges national, rather than leave them for local organisations to arrange?
    Mr. Tomlinson: A good deal of work has been done through local voluntary organisations. We are in touch with the representatives of the Ministries of Education in other countries, but we hesitate to put a stop to the work that is being done privately.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Is my right hon. Friend, apart from ordinary educational work, encouraging the youth of the various nations to come on working parties—not from this country only to the Continent, but from continental countries here—in connection with such matters as agriculture and the reconstruction of devastated towns?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should want notice of that question and of the particulars concerned. In so far as this affects my Department, we assist.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present moment there are here visitors from Germany, including ministers of religion and leaders of youth organisations, who are here especially to study our methods of youth organisation, and is not that a clear indication that in Germany and other countries on the Continent there is a desire on their part to foster this interchange of visitors for educational and moral purposes

    LIST OF GOVERNORS OF NATIONAL COLLEGES

    (a) NATIONAL COLLEGE OF RUBBER TECHNOLOGY

    Name

    Nominated by

    Chairman:—

    H. Rogers.

    Other Governors:—

    C. D. Law

    …

    …

    …

    The Institution of the Rubber Industry.

    Dr. W. J. S. Naunton

    …

    …

    …

    The Institution of the Rubber Industry.

    F. M. Panzetta, M.B.E.

    …

    …

    …

    The Institution of the Rubber Industry.

    S. D. Sutton

    …

    …

    …

    The Institution of the Rubber Industry.

    H. Willshaw, O.B.E.

    …

    …

    …

    The Institution of the Rubber Industry.

    J. Frankenburg

    …

    …

    …

    The Federation of British Rubber Manufacturers' Associations.

    G. E. Godfrey

    …

    …

    …

    The Federation of British Rubber Manufacturers' Associations.

    M. M. Heywood

    …

    …

    …

    The Tyre Manufacturers' Conference.

    F. G. W. King

    …

    …

    …

    The Tyre Manufacturers' Conference.

    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, that is perfectly true, and these things have been going on for a long time. It is part of our duty to encourage them, and to see that they are properly organised.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to encourage an exchange of visitors between this country and Russia or this country and Poland?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not at the moment

    Industrial Colleges (Governing Bodies)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister of Education if he will give the names of members of the governing bodies of the national colleges for various industries so far established, indicating their educational and industrial qualifications.
    Mr. Tomlinson: With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members and the bodies by whom they are nominated.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my right- hon. Friend satisfied that a proper balance has been secured between the representation of educational and industrial interests on these bodies, and is he also satisfied that the industrial representation is as weighty and representative as can be secured?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is difficult to say that one is always satisfied that a proper balance has been obtained, but I think that if my hon. Friend will read the lists which I am sending him he will find that they are as good as can be obtained.
    Following is the information:

    Name

    Nominated by

    Other Governors:—cont.

    H. B. Egmont Hake

    …

    …

    The Rubber Growers' Association.

    Dr. J. R. Scott

    …

    …

    The Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers.

    L. Mullins

    …

    …

    The Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers.

    Dr. G. Gee

    …

    …

    The British Rubber Producers' Research Association.

    Dr. C. M. Blow

    …

    …

    The British Rubber Producers' Research Association.

    T. H. Hodgson

    …

    …

    The National Joint Industrial Council for the Rubber Manufacturing Industry.

    C. H. Beckett

    …

    …

    The National Joint Industrial Council for the Rubber Manufacturing Industry.

    G. Ayres

    …

    …

    The Middlesex Local Education Authority

    E. C. Given, C.B.E.

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    Miss Irene Marcouse. J.P.

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    R. L. Roberts, C.B.E.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Northern Polytechnic.

    Sir Paul Booth, D.L.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Northern Polytechnic.

    W. T. Wells, M.P.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Northern Polytechnic.

    G. J. Pryke

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Northern Polytechnic.

    Assessor:—

    Dr. P. C. L. Thorne, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Minister of Education.

    (b) NATIONAL COLLEGE OF HOROLOGY AND INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGY

    Name

    Nominated by

    Chairman:—

    Sir Allan Gordon Smith, K.B.E., D.L..

    Other Governors:—

    Major G. Dennison

    …

    …

    Worshipful Company of Clockmakers.

    E. Buerger

    …

    …

    British Clock Manufacturers' Association.

    V. G. S. Z. de Ferranti

    …

    …

    British Clock Manufacturers' Association.

    H. V. Slade

    …

    …

    British Clock Manufacturers' Association.

    W. A. Jackson

    …

    …

    Synchronous Clock Conference.

    D. W. Barrett

    …

    …

    Clock Manufacturers' Industrial and Export Group.

    F. Wakeham

    …

    …

    Scientific Instrument Manufacturers' Association.

    Sir Harold S. Jones, F.R.S., M.A.

    …

    …

    British Horological Institute.

    J. R. W. Ridgway

    …

    …

    Trades Union Congress.

    G. W. Thomson

    …

    …

    Trades Union Congress.

    B. Ingram

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Northampton Polytechnic.

    F. Mercer

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Northampton Polytechnic.

    D. Northall-Laurie

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Northampton Polytechnic.

    G A. Whipple

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Northampton Polytechnic.

    J. S. Cook, B.Sc.

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    C. I. Orr-Ewing, O.B.E..

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    C. H. Wright, A.M.I.E.E.

    …

    …

    Secretary of State for Scotland.

    W. R. McGaw

    …

    …

    Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production.

    F. A. Gould

    …

    …

    National Physical Laboratory.

    Assessors:—

    H. C Weston, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Minister of Education.

    J. Ferguson, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    (c) NATIONAL FOUNDRY COLLEGE

    Name

    Nominated by

    Chairman:—

    R. G. Hosking, C.B.E.

    Other Governors:—

    D. G. Bisset

    …

    …

    …

    The Joint Iron Council. (Representing the Council of Iron Foundry Associations and the Council of Iron Producers).

    Name

    Nominated by

    Other Governors:—cont.

    Dr. J. E. Hurst, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Joint Iron Council. (Representing the Council of Iron Foundry Associations and the Council of Iron Producers).

    S. H. Russell

    …

    …

    The Joint Iron Council.(Representing the Council of Iron Foundry Associations and the Council of Iron Producers).

    P. H. Wilson, O.B.E..

    …

    …

    The Joint Iron Council. (Representing the Council of Iron Foundry Associations and the Council of Iron Producers).

    W. S. Lawson

    …

    …

    The Association of Brass and Bronze Founders.

    A. B. Lloyd

    …

    …

    The British Steel Founders' Association.

    A. J. Murphy

    …

    …

    The British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association.

    J. G. Pearce

    …

    …

    The British Cast Iron Research Association.

    Dr. E. Gregory

    …

    …

    The British Iron and Steel Research Association.

    L. Fletcher

    …

    …

    The Light Metal Founders' Association.

    H. E. Cookson

    …

    …

    The Iron and Steel Institute.

    C. C. Booth, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Institute of British Foundrymen.

    E. Bowen

    …

    …

    Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

    J. W. Berry

    …

    …

    The Institution of Production Engineers.

    C. McCaw

    …

    …

    The West Midland Advisory Council for Further Education.

    Professor L. Aitchison

    …

    …

    Birmingham University.

    Alderman J. Clark, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Technical College.

    Alderman A. A. Beach, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Technical College.

    Alderman L. Davies, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Technical College.

    Alderman B. Bilboe, J.P.

    …

    …

    The Governing Body of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Technical College.

    Councillor W. J. Foster

    …

    …

    The Wolverhampton Local Education Authority.

    J. H. Parker-Oxspring

    …

    …

    The Staffordshire Local Education Authority.

    A. Bennett

    …

    …

    The Trades Union Congress.

    J. Gardner

    …

    …

    The Trades Union Congress.

    Co-opted Members: —

    L. Evans, C.B.E.

    …

    …

    —

    Sir Archibald McKinstry

    …

    …

    —

    Assessors:—

    R. W. Blount, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Minister of Education.

    J. Ferguson, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    (d) NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR HEATING, VENTILATING, REFRIGERATION AND FAN ENGINEERING

    Name

    Nominated by

    Chairman:—

    H. A. Secretan, O.B.E.., M.A..

    Other Governors:—

    J. W. L. Beaven

    …

    …

    …

    Association of Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering Employers.

    W. L. Swain

    …

    …

    …

    Association of Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering Employers.

    L. C. Watts

    …

    …

    …

    Association of Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering Employers.

    F. R. L. White

    …

    …

    …

    Association of Heating, Ventilating and Domestic Engineering Employers.

    A. Nicol

    …

    …

    …

    British Refrigeration Association.

    E. G. Batt

    …

    …

    …

    British Refrigeration Association.

    C. M. Brain

    …

    …

    …

    Institute of Refrigeration.

    C. J. Taylor

    …

    …

    …

    Institute of Refrigeration.

    G. L. Copping

    …

    …

    …

    Fan Manufacturers' Association, Ltd.

    F. D. Moul

    …

    …

    …

    Fan Manufacturers' Association, Ltd.

    D. S. Woodley

    …

    …

    …

    Fan Manufacturers' Association, Ltd.

    M. G. Woods

    …

    …

    …

    Fan Manufacturers' Association, Ltd.

    L. H. Nicklin

    …

    …

    …

    National Union of Operative Heating and Domestic Engineers and General Metalworkers.

    Name

    Nominated by

    Other Governors:—cont.

    V. E. Wymans

    …

    …

    …

    Trades Union Congress.

    E. J. Turner

    …

    …

    …

    Trades Union Congress.

    D. C. Highton

    …

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Borough Polytechnic.

    J. W. Cooling

    …

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Borough Polytechnic.

    F. G. Woollard, D.L.., J.P.

    …

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Borough Polytechnic.

    Mrs. M. Ormerod

    …

    …

    …

    Governing Body of the Borough Polytechnic.

    J. J. Keen

    …

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    A. C Wates

    …

    …

    …

    London County Council.

    W. C. Peck

    …

    …

    …

    University of London.

    I. G. Evans

    …

    …

    …

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

    Assessors:—

    J. B. M. Hay, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Minister of Education.

    M. R. Gavin, H.M.I.

    …

    …

    …

    Appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    (e) COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICS

    Name

    Nominated by

    Chairman:—

    Air Chief Marshal Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, G.C.B, G.B.E., C.M.G., D.S.O.. M.C.

    Other Governors:—

    Dr. W. Abbott, O.B.E.., B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E., H.M.I.

    Minister of Education.

    J. Fearn

    Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

    Air Marshal Sir W. Alec Coryton, K.B.E., C.B., M.V.O., D.F.C.

    Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production.

    Sir Charles Darwin, K.B.E., M.C, Sc.D., F.R.S.

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

    Sir A. H. Roy Fedden, M.B.E.., D.Sc., F.R.Ae.S., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.A.E., F.R.S.A., M.S.A.E., M.I.Ae.S.

    Royal Aeronautical Society.

    J. Ferguson, M.A.., B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Struct.E.

    Scottish Education Department.

    Sir Harold Hartley, K.C.V.O., C.B.E., M.C, F.R.S.

    Independent.

    Sir Bennett Melvill Jones, C.B.E., A.F.C, M.A.., F.R.S., F.R.Ae.S., Hon. F.I.Ae.S.

    Universities.

    Professor E. B. Moullin, M.A.., Sc.D., M.I.E.E.

    Institute of Electrical Engineers.

    J. D. North, F.R.Ae.S., M.I.Mech.E.

    Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

    Sir Frederick Handley Page, C.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., F.C.G.I.

    Independent.

    Dr. H. Roxbee-Cox, D.I.C., B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S.. A.F.I.Ae.S.

    Royal Aeronautical Society.

    Sir George Cribbett, K.B.E., C.M.G.

    Minister of Civil Aviation.

    Rt. Hon. The Earl of Selkirk, O.B.E.., A.F.C.

    Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Sir Victor Goddard, K.C.B., C.B.E.

    Secretary of State for Air.

    Sir William Stanier, F.R.S., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Loco.E.

    Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

    Vice-Admiral Geo. E. Creasey, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., M.V.O.

    Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

    W. E. F. Ward, C.M.G., M.A.

    Secretary of State for the Colonies

    Air Commodore U. E. Ewart

    Government of Australia.

    V. K. K. Menon

    Government of India.

    H. I. Rahimtoola

    Government of Pakistan.

    Training Colleges (Grants)
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to voluntary training colleges and their students by delays in paying grants; and whether he will institute a system of regular payments made in good time to meet the commitments of those concerned.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The British and Foreign Schools Society, which is responsible for three training colleges, has complained that the present arrangements for the payment of grant are causing them, inconvenience, and my Department is discussing this complaint with them. So far as I am aware, there have been no other recent complaints or criticisms.
    Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is expected that three-tenths of the annual grant should be paid at the beginning of each term and that in each case this grant is delayed, according to my investigation, in the colleges mentioned? The Ministry has to lay down some approved fees for the students, and if these fees are not laid down in time it causes inconvenience to the students?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have these points in mind, and I think that they can be cleared up.

    Textbooks (U.S. History)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Education if he will issue a circular to local education authorities encouraging instruction in the history of the U.S.A. in secondary schools; and if lists of approved textbooks on U.S. history will be made available for teachers.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think that a circular on the subject is necessary, nor is it my practice to issue lists of approved textbooks to teachers. I feel sure that teachers do not need to be convinced of the importance of the study of the United States, and the welcome presence in our schools of a large number of American exchange teachers is a constant reminder to them.
    Sir P. Hannon: But in view of the deplorable ignorance in this country of American history will not the Minister do something to encourage teachers in every class of school in the country to study a little more of the history of the United States
    Mr. Tomlinson: I seem to find a sort of reciprocal feeling in other countries who deplore our lack of knowledge of their history. We are doing our best to bring a liberal interpretation to all history, and to give freedom to teachers.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could the right hon. Gentleman come to some arrangement with his colleague in the educational department of America for a reciprocal arrangement to revise the history books of each country in their respective schools?
    Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister brings in American education will he see that Al Capone, graft and the lynching of Negroes get a foremost place?

    Remedial Education (Birmingham Experiment)
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Education if his attention has been called to the experiment in remedial education which has been established in the Institute of Education in Birmingham University; and what steps he is taking to have this experiment tried out in Institutes of Education in other Universities.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I have been kept informed of this very interesting experiment and have given it every encouragement, but I prefer to leave to other institutes of education the responsibility for considering whether it should be repeated elsewhere.
    Sir P. Hannon: Does not the Minister think that this experiment ought to be extended to other modern universities throughout the country; and is it not very unfortunate that this example should not be followed by other educational bodies?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should like it to run a little longer before I come to any decision on whether or not I personally would recommend it.

  U.N.E.S.C.O.

    Financial Irregularities (Auditors' Reports)
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to the report of the auditors on the accounts of U.N.E.S.C.O. contained in the French version of the report of the Committee of Administration set up by U.N.E.S.C.O.; and as the auditors reported that the accounts were kept in a disorderly manner and that there had been a misappropriation of 1,173,339 franc?, why no mention of these facts is contained in the English version of the same report.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smilesasked the Minister of Education why the information that more than 1,000,000 francs was lost by the cashier in gambling was omitted from the British official edition of the recent U.N.E.S.C.O. report.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Education why the British report of the Second General Conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. held in November and

    537
    December, 1947, omitted certain paragraphs which are contained in the French version, including the strictures of Messrs. Price Waterhouse, the auditors.
    Mr. Tomlinson: As this matter has aroused a good deal of interest I hope the House will bear with me while I give a detailed explanation. Various reports on the Mexico City Conference have been published. U.N.E.S.C.O. has itself published both in French and in English the complete transactions of the conference. These documents fill three volumes and can be obtained in this country through His Majesty's Stationery Office. Readers of English are not, therefore, denied access to any of these documents.
    The Report on the Conference published by His Majesty's Stationery Office was not intended to cover fully the official U.N.E.S.C.O. report. Something shorter and cheaper was needed. It makes a general reference to the financial irregularities of 1946 and to the remedial action taken, but to have printed the whole of the auditors' reports would have increased the size and price of the pamphlet to an extent which did not appear to be justified for the following reason:
    The inadequate accounting and financial irregularities referred to took place between 15th September, 1946, and the end of that year, while the Preparatory Commission, which preceded the establishment of U.N.E.S.C.O. itself, was sitting in Paris. The Auditors' Supplementary Report of 18th September, 1947, indicated that U.N.E.S.C.O.'s methods of accounting had been greatly improved since the beginning of that year.
    I might add that the U.S. Government report is similar to the one published by His Majesty's Stationery Office and also omits the auditors' reports.
    Commander Maitland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, even though this happened some time ago, it is always most important that where there appear to be defalcations special attention should be drawn to them, otherwise the sort of suspicion which has arisen in this case will inevitably occur; and will he take pains in future, when dealing with matters of this kind, to see that this sort of thing is brought out?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am hoping that there will be no future occasion when it will be necessary to draw attention to the defalcations of a member of another State. I would point out that reference is made to it in the abridged report, although I admit that there is no full statement, but this is to be found in the official U.N.E.S.C.O. report which is available to anyone who desires it.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that there is public anxiety—voiced in a leading article in last Tuesday's "Times"—about the wisdom of some of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s activities, and does he agree that it is therefore important that no impression should be given that unpleasant facts are being suppressed, especially as the British taxpayer is contributing over £250,000 a year?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am in full accord with the leading article in "The Times" but it had nothing to do with this question.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I hesitate to raise this matter because it hardly affects the present administration, but would the Minister answer this question? He said that the United States report and the United Kingdom report were the same. Would he not agree that, when we go to a conference and agree on a particular report, and then find that in the British report the numbering and the annexes are so changed that there is no reference to particular financial matters—and I have looked at both reports—it is a matter for very grave consideration? I do not want to press the matter now because it did not really arise during the Minister's tenure of office.
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is because the same point has been raised in another publication that I went very carefully into it. It is true that in the American report which can be compared with our abridged report there is only one slight reference to the auditors' report but this is available to anyone in this country.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take note of where such corrupt practices take place and that they are one form of activity for which the Communists cannot be attacked?

    Programme
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Education what are the main projects now under consideration by U.N.E.S.C.O.
    Mr. Tomlinson: UNESCO, has under discussion or in hand a number of projects designed to achieve two main objects: to help to reconstruct the educational and cultural life of countries devastated by the war and to encourage the free movement of people, material and ideas in the fields of education, science and culture. It is impossible to summarise the practical projects themselves within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I am sending the hon. Member a document which sets out this year's programme in detail.
    Commander Maitland: As the Minister has pointed out that it is impossible to summarise what is happening in U.N.E.S.C.O., and in view of the very considerable interest taken in the general things which U.N.E.S.C.O. are doing, which are brought out in various papers such as the "Manchester Guardian" and the "National Newsletter," does he not consider that this would form an extremely good subject for a Debate on the Adjournment just before the Recess?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should put that question to the Leader of the House or to Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that places like Beirut and Mexico City are the most convenient venues for the furtherance of these projects, and would he use his influence to see that the next conference is held in Europe and that it is more fully reported in this country?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I think that if my hon. Friend would read the report of the last conference he would find that we were in a minority of three who objected to going to Beirut. I will certainly do my best to bring all conferences to Europe if I can.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much U.N.E.S.C.O. is spending on the study of the influence of altitude on sex?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what instructions were given to the British
  540
  delegation at the United Nations Assembly in respect to the proposals of the Union of South Africa to institute a closer form of association with South-West Africa; and how far the proposed action is in conformity with assurances previously given.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Perhaps my hon. Friend has seen the speech about South-West Africa which was made on 10th November in the Fourth Committee of the Assembly by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. In that speech my hon. Friend repeated what was said by his predecessors in the last two meetings of the Assembly, namely, that in the view of His Majesty's Government in the U.K. the Charter of the United Nations imposes no legal obligation on the Government of the Union to place South-West Africa under Trusteeship.
  Mr. Skinnard: Could my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the Question?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand my hon. Friend to mean the assurances given by the South African Government. Those assurances are a matter for that Government, and I cannot answer for them.

  INDIA AND PAKISTAN

    Civil Service (Pensions)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1), what progress has been made in the discussion with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the provision of proportionate pensions for non-Secretary of State servants;
    (2) whether he will start discussions immediately with the Governments of India and Pakistan for the provision of compensation for those non-Secretary of State civil servants whose position has been prejudiced by changes of government policy towards them since August, 1947.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am glad to tell the hon. Member that the Governments of India and Pakistan have now agreed to allow European members of the non-Secretary of State's Services who are not

    541
    domiciled in India or Pakistan to retire on proportionate pension, it they so desire. The Government of India have reserved the right to postpone release for as long as a year from the date of application, if they think it necessary in the public interest to do so. The Government of Pakistan have made the same general condition, but for technical officers they have fixed the maximum period of postponement at two years instead of one.
    Details of the arrangements are being published in announcements which the Governments of India and Pakistan are issuing today. I will, with the hon. Member's permission circulate the text of the announcement made by the Government of India in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Governments of India and Pakistan do not feel able to grant the right to compensation in addition to the right, which they have now conceded, to retire on proportionate pension.
    Mr. Low: Would I be right in saying, following that answer, that this arrangement does not apply to those non-Secretary of State servants who have already retired—that is, retired before the making of this announcement; if so, is it not wholly unfair to these men, whose retirement may well be due, and normally has been due, to the changed conditions; and has not this difference in treatment been brought about largely by the fact that His Majesty's Government have purposely postponed discussing this important matter with the Governments of India and Pakistan?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has asked three Questions. First, this is not retrospective; it does not apply to men who have retired. Secondly, in our view that is not unfair. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the two Governments have felt it necessary to reserve the right to postpone release for a year in one case, or in some cases even two years, because they find it difficult to do without the services of these men; they regard those who have resigned as having walked out on them; for that reason they would not agree to make it retrospective. Nor do I think if they did agree, that would be fair to those who are now to be retained perhaps for a year after they wish to retire. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked if the Govern-
    542
    ment had been guilty of delay in negotiating this matter. I think not; I think it was not possible to deal with it until the sterling balance negotiations had taken place, which was in July of this year. Since then we have pressed it vigorously.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Would the right hon. Gentleman be ready to receive representations from some of us on the subject of those civil servants who have resigned; would the Government seriously consider accepting liability for their case, now that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted liability for the case of those who are remaining; and would he further accept the fact that there is great satisfaction in the House that, to the extent of the concession that has been given, the Indian and Pakistan Governments have been generous towards these men?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I will transmit to the two Governments what he has said in his concluding words. With regard to the earlier point, of course I shall be very happy to receive representations on this matter, but I could not enter into any commitment about what we shall do. I have not so far received evidence which seems to me at all conclusive that anybody has been forced to resign by action taken by either of the Governments.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Are these pensions guaranteed by the British Government?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. These are non-Secretary of State pensions. The conditions of service were drawn up entirely by the Government of India.
    Mr. Low: Is it not true to say that His Majesty's Government have not so far pressed the Governments of India and Pakistan to grant any form of compensation to men who are forced to retire in the changed conditions; and is it not extraordinary that they have shown such weakness, when they managed to get the Government of Burma to give similar servants a gratuity or compensation on retirement?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If I may, I will send the hon. Member the details of what was done by the Government of Burma, which I think he will see do not at all support the conclusion he has drawn in connection with these men. I do not think it would be right for us to press the Governments

    543
    of India and Pakistan to do this, for the reasons which I have already explained.
    Following is the Government of India's announcement:
    In response to representations made to them and having regard to the constitutional changes that took place in India on the 15th August, 1947, the Government of India have, in consultation with the Provincial Governments and in agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, decided to extend the right of retirement before completing the service normally required for earning a retiring pension, or other retiring benefits, to European officers of Civil Services in India who were not already eligible for this concession, viz., officers other than those belonging to the Services previously under the rule-making control of the late Secretary of State for India. Officers who may prematurely retire from service pursuant to this decision will receive such proportionate pension or gratuity or Provident Fund benefits, as the case may be, as would have been admissible to them in the event of their discharge from service on the abolition of their posts, without alternative employment being provided, under the relevant service rules. Officers will also be eligible for such leave preparatory to retirement as may be admissible to them under the normal operation of the rules applicable to them. These concessions will be limited to European officers of non-Indian domicile, who are permanent employees of Government.
    His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have agreed to bear any extra cost that the Governments in India may have to incur on account of the grant of this concession. They have also agreed to bear the charges on account of the grant of repatriation passages to such of the European officers and their families as avail themselves of the concession of premature retirement but are not, under the service rules applicable to them, entitled to free passages. Repatriation passages for this purpose include single railway fares from last place of employment in India to the port of embarkation and from the port of disembarkation to destination.
    Efforts will be made to release officers wishing to retire under this scheme as soon as possible, but the releases may be staggered where the exigencies of public
    544
    service demand. In no case, however, will the release of officers who wish to retire be postponed beyond 12 months.

    European Judges (Compensation)
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether European judges, who were appointed judges in India before August, 1947, and who have resigned or may resign in consequence of changed conditions, will receive compensation; who will pay them compensation; what amount; and on what conditions.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member may by now have seen the answer to a written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) on 16th November, in which I set out the scale of, and the conditions for, the grant of compensation to European Judges of High Courts in India, Pakistan and Burma who retire owing to the changed conditions. The cost of compensation will be borne by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and payment will be made by the Commonwealth Relations Office

  EIRE (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the negotiations which took place in Paris on 15th November between Members of the Government of the United Kingdom and representatives of the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and representatives of the Government of Eire on the other.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The matters discussed at the meetings in Paris are now under consideration by the Governments of the Commonwealth. I regret, therefore, that I am unable at present to make the statement for which the hon. Member asks.
  Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on previous occasions when amendments to the Treaty of 1921 have been made they have always been submitted to this House for ratification, as in 1925 and 1938; and will the same procedure be adopted on this occasion?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and look at it very carefully.
  Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the old English maxim: You cannot eat your cake and have it?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Weights and Measures (Inquiry)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the President of the Board of Trade when the committee of inquiry into weights and measures administration and legislation is to be set up; and whether he is yet in a position to announce the personnel of the committee and its terms of reference.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): This committee has been set up and has already held its first meeting. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the terms of reference and the names of the members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Middleton: In view of the fact that Government and Government-sponsored organisations are more and more entering into matters of trade, would my right hon. Friend consider so widening the terms of reference of this committee as to enable the committee to inquire whether such organisations, Government or Government-sponsored, can be brought under the aegis of Board of Trade inspectors in order that weighing and measuring appliances used by them may conform to the same standards as those used in ordinary retail trades?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, but when she sees the terms of reference she will find, I think, that they are pretty wide.
    Following is the information:
    The terms of reference are: "To review the existing weights and measures legislation and other legislation containing provisions affecting weights and measures and the administration thereof, and to make recommendations for bringing these into line with present day requirements."
    The list of members is as follows:
    Chairman—Sir Edward H. Hodgson, K.B.E., C.B., formerly a Second Secretary, Board of Trade.
    1. From Commerce

    Mr. C. L. Boynton—Company Director in the Wholesale Greengrocery trade.

    546

    Mr. A. Carruth—General Manager of the Dalziel Co-operative Society.

    Mr. K. A. Cleland—Director of a Middlesex firm of Coal Merchants.

    Mr. G. Kingham—Chairman of a firm of Wholesale Grocers.

    Mr. D. B. Morgan, J.P.—Chairman of a large Department Store in Cardiff.

    2. From the Consuming Public

    Mrs. Rosa Pearson—A resident of Gates-head. National President of the Women's Co-operative Guild.

    Mrs. Margaret Turner—A housewife, resident in Lavenham, Suffolk.

    3. From those with technical experience in Weights and Measures

    Mr. A. Jacob—A member of a Birmingham firm of scale-makers.

    Mr. J. E. Sears, C.B.E.—Formerly Head of Metrology Division at the National Physical Laboratory, and President of the "Union des Poids et Mesures."

    4. From those with experience in administering existing law

    Mr. H. J. C. Davies—Formerly Chief Officer of the Public Control Department of the London County Council.

    Mr. T. H. Jenks, M.B.E.—Formerly Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures of the County of Buckingham.

    Mr. J. Storrar, M.C., B.L., S.S.C.—The Town Clerk of Edinburgh.

    Mr. S. A. ff. Dakin—The Assistant Secretary in the Board of Trade branch responsible for the Standards Department.

    Rubber Stocks
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the safeguards against the sale of the strategic stock of rubber in America to American manufacturers, of which there have been a number of instances recently, will be sufficient in the future to stop the pressure that such sales exercise against the dollar-earning power of the rubber-producing industry in Malaya and elsewhere; and if, in the negotiations for the disposal of this stock, he considered representations either from the Rubber Study Group or from the producing and distributing associations, thereby avoiding a repetition of the error committed in this connection at Geneva.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am not aware of any recent sales from the United States strategic stocks of rubber except for the purpose of replacing deteriorating material. Such representations as we have received in the past from the producing and distribution associations were in favour of transferring Government trading stocks of rubber to a strategic stockpile. The Rubber Study Group is an Inter-Governmental organisation.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that this stockpile of rubber is being made available for American civilian use on a rotation basis of every 30 to 45 days, which can have nothing to do with the deterioration of the stock, and that the effect is to produce many less dollars for the British Empire? Will he take the matter up through official channels to see that it is done in rather a different way?
    Mr. Wilson: Sales which are made from the stockpile are, of course, replaced, and so the total volume remains the same, but if the hon. Member has any evidence that the stockpile is being used in such a way as artificially to reduce the price of rubber and therefore reduce our dollar-earning capacity, I shall be very glad to take it up with the United States Government.
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the price at which part of the rubber stock held in this country and sold to America under the terms of the E.R.P. Agreement entailed a loss to His Majesty's Government, after taking into account storage, interest and insurance calculated on a commercial basis.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The loss on the basis suggested by the hon. Member is estimated at about £750,000.
    Mr. Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this loss was made when there have been many opportunities to dispose of these stocks beforehand in this country and elsewhere without making a loss?
    Mr. Wilson: The reason this loss was made, as I think the hon. Member knows, is that much of this rubber was bought following the wartime Ceylon contract, which was at a very high price, and it is being disposed of at a lower price than the price enforced upon us by wartime conditions. If this rubber had been made available for current consumption, it would have had the effect of depressing the market, which would have affected our dollar-earning capacity.
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade how far the price at which a proportion of the rubber stock held by His Majesty's Government in this country was sold to the United
    548
    States Government was below the Is. 3 13/16d. per pound at which it was available to manufacturers in this country; and whether manufacturers in this country were given the opportunity of buying this stock at the price at which it was sold to the United States Government.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The rubber was sold on the basis of 22⅝ cents per 1b. c.i.f. New York for standard No. 1 sheet. Manufacturers in this country were not given an opportunity to buy the stock, but I am satisfied the market could provide quite as satisfactorily for their requirements.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the manufacturers in this country were not given an equal opportunity along with the Americans to buy this stock, and why, in view of the need to keep our goods at a proper price-level for the export drive, this method of depriving them of stock, which has been held in this country, at the same price as has been made available to America, was adopted?
    Mr. Wilson: Had this been made available it would have had a depressing effect on the market, and it would undoubtedly have affected our dollar-earning capacity.
    Mr. John Lewis: Is it not quite obvious that if rubber is sold to manufacturers in the United States at a lower price than to British manufacturers, it is quite impossible for British manufacturers to compete in the world markets with the United States?
    Mr. Wilson: This was sold, not to American manufacturers, but to the American strategic stock pile.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that, if there is any question of disposing of further stocks in future, manufacturers in this country will have an equal chance?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how, in a world of high material prices, His Majesty's Government can quote such low prices for materials over which we have some control?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is referring to the general

    549
    low prices of rubber, or to this particular transaction. As far as the former is concerned, I think the hon. Member knows that the main reason why we did not get what many consider to be an adequate price for sterling area rubber is the large volume of synthetic rubber overhanging the market.

    Film Industry (Committee Report)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on his Department's intention with regard to a Government-owned film studio.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. The Report of the Film Studio Committee was published today by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and copies are now available at the Vote Office. I am most grateful to Sir George Gater and his colleagues for the Report they have submitted to me. The upshot of their recommendations is that the Government should not embark upon the provision of additional studio space in any form without being satisfied that its continuous employment in production can be guaranteed by means of an efficient organisation of independent or, as the Committee prefer to call them, free-lance producers. The Committee also point out that at the present time independent or free-lance production is not being hampered in any way by lack of studio space.
    I have decided that in these circumstances it would not be expedient at the present time for the Government to build or acquire a State-owned or State-managed studio. The Committee, however, suggest that the Government might consider, as an alternative method of providing additional studio space, the possibility of granting facilities for the erection of an additional stage or stages at existing studios, on condition of their being made available to free-lance producers. I think this suggestion is a good one, and in considering proposals of this kind I shall have regard not only to the claims of independent production but also to the possibility of introducing improvements in production technique.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that so long as there is a vast amount of studio space unused he will not go to the ex-
    550
    pense and trouble of wasting labour and material in erecting further stages?
    Mr. Wilson: I think that was implied in my answer. It is a fact that no freelance producer or any other producer is held up at the present time by lack of studio space, although I would not commit myself not to grant facilities, if this could be done, for people to build a studio, particularly if it could embody some of the latest ideas in studio production technique.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give an equivalent undertaking to the effect that he will approach the film industry in regard to a reduction of the rentals of privately-owned studios?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. If there is any evidence produced before me that studio charges are excessive, I shall be very glad to go into it with the film industry.

    Muzak Corporation, U.S.A.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken as the result of the letter addressed to him on 21st October by Mr. Wiswell, of the Muzak Corporation of U.S.A., asking for his assistance in placing orders worth 40,000 dollars a year; and what reply he has sent to Mr. Wiswell.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I appreciate the offer made on behalf of the Muzak Corporation, but I understand that there are certain objections on the part of the Musicians' Union. I have of course no powers of compulsion in this matter, but my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade has invited the Union to discuss their objections with him. It has not yet proved possible, however, to arrange a meeting. Mr. Wiswell has been kept informed of the position.
    Mr. Cooper: Is it not a fact that Mr. Radcliffe, the Secretary of the Musicians Union, is opposing this transaction, which is likely to be of such benefit to this country, purely on grounds of personal prejudice, and is it not a fact that this individual has been invited to the Board of Trade and has not even replied to that invitation? Can something be done to remove this petty difficulty, which is preventing work going to the musicians of this country and also the

    551
    country from earning those dollars which we so urgently require?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend's imputations are correct or not, but as I have already said, the Secretary for Overseas Trade has asked the officials concerned to come and discuss the matter with him.

    Hairdressers (Towels)
    Professor Savoryasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the trade hardship suffered by Northern Ireland hairdressers by their being obliged to use their own clothing coupons to obtain towels for trade use and to carry out by-laws requiring the use of a clean towel for each customer; and if he will take action to enable these hairdressers to obtain an adequate supply of coupon-free towels for this purpose in the interests of public health.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have received representations from hairdressers on this subject, but I am afraid that up to the present the supply position has not permitted a further quantity of towels to be made available to them. I shall, however, keep this matter under careful review.
    Professor Savory: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the by-laws of the Ministry of Health of Northern Ireland relating to hygiene in hairdressing, in accordance with which a clean towel must be used for every client, and is he aware that leading barbers have said they have been obliged to use their own private coupons in order to comply with this law?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but I am also aware of the very great need for maximum hygiene in catering establishments and many other places which are already short of towels, and of the acute shortage of towels on the home market.

    Production Efficiency Service
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms have requested the assistance of the Production Efficiency Service during the year ended June, 1948; and what was the total cost of operations during this year.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Eighty-six different firms requested assistance during the year ending June, 1948. The cost of the service during this period, excluding accommodation and overheads, was approximately £35,000.

    Finnish Granite Memorials
    Mr. George Hicksasked the President of the Board of Trade why no reply has been given to an urgent communication addressed to his Department on 14th October, 1948, by the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers regarding a permit issued by the Board of Trade for the importation of Finnish granite memorials.
    Mr. H. Wilson: My personal attention was drawn to the letter from the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers by a letter from the National Joint Council for the Monumental Industry for England and Wales, to whom I replied on 15th November.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry is predisposed in favour of the Government but that they were very disappointed when there was no reply forthcoming to the letter sent?
    Mr. Wilson: I very much regret the delay.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a granite quarry in Cornwall, employing 100 men, was put out of work last month? Will he see that this sort of thing does not occur as a result of imports from other countries?
    Mr. Wilson: I am well aware that our granite supplies are sufficient, but in our trade negotiations with countries like Finland, from whom we want timber for the building industry, we cannot in each case refuse to take non-essentials with which they want to supply us.

    Scotch Whisky (Trade Description)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, have been instituted by him in connection with the sale of goods falsely described as Scotch whisky.
    Mr. H. Wilson: None, Sir.
    Colonel Hutchison: In view of the Minister's powers under this Act, has his attention been drawn to liquids bearing such labels as "Whisky McAndy," "The Cameron," "Highland Bonnie." and others?
    Mr. Wilson: I have no means of checking them, but it is a fact that so far as communications with the Board of Trade are concerned we have had no evidence of false description of Scotch whisky. In any case the Scotch Whisky Association can themselves take a case to court under the Act, as they did in 1938.
    Colonel Hutchison: If I send the Minister the opportunity of tasting will he undertake to taste?
    Mr. Wilson: I could not quite hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but I shall be happy to listen to any proposal he may wish to make.

  PETROL SUPPLIES

    Hire Cars
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whenever an application for petrol for an additional hire car or taxi is received by officers of his Department, what authorities are consulted as to the need for further hire cars or taxis in the area before a decision to grant or withhold petrol is made.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): In the case of hire cars, the regional petroleum officer decides whether to grant a petrol allowance after obtaining information, normally from the police, regarding the need for further hire car facilities in the district concerned. An allowance is granted irrespective of need in certain cases where the Ministry of Labour certify that occupation as owner-driver of a hire car would be the best means of permanent rehabilitation of the disabled person.
    As regards taxi cabs, which are licenced and controlled by local authorities the regional petroleum officer grants an allowance where the local authorities concerned certify that an addition to the number of vehicles licensed to ply for hire is required to meet essential transport needs.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that licences for petrol for additional hire cars are being refused
    554
    after they have been granted by the local magistrates in the magistrate's court, at which the Chief Constable was present; and can he remove this sort of muddle in future either by agreeing in advance to the number of hire cars required for the district or in some other way?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware of the case mentioned. There was a misunderstanding whether this was a taxicab or hire car, but it has now been cleared up.
    Mr. David Renton: Can the Minister say if it is still a fact, as he said a year ago, that the police play an important part in deciding whether petrol should be allowed to these private hire cars and will he explain what part the police play?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to that is perfectly clear from my original answer. Regional petroleum officers seek information from the police about the need for hire cars in precisely the same way as they have been doing for several years.

    Unused Coupons
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power for how long unused standard petrol ration coupons of the present series will be valid.
    Mr. Gaitskell: As I explained in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 4th November, standard ration coupons are valid for the month shown on them and five succeeding months. Those for June, marked "First month," will not be valid after the end of November, but those marked "Second month" will be valid till the end of December, and so on— those marked "Sixth month" being valid till the end of April.

    Cars (Licensing and Insurance)
    Captain John Crowderasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether motorists using the standard ration only will still be able to license and insure their cars at the reduced rate for the new issue of the standard ration starting on 1st December.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.
    Captain Crowder: To prevent any misunderstanding between the public and the insurance companies and the licensing

    555
    authorities, would the Minister make it quite plain that if supplementary petrol is used in these cars, a full licence and a full insurance policy must be taken out, because altering them has given a lot of trouble in the past?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I shall consider giving further publicity to the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

    Control Officers (Duties)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to a recent court case wherein the witness was a grade III clerk at the regional fuel office who stated to the judge, in reply to a question, that very few of the applications for supplementary petrol went up to the control officer but were dealt with by him; and what steps he has taken to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) on 11th November. I do not accept the statement attributed to the clerk in question. While routine renewal applications may be dealt with in the first instance by grade III clerks, their work is invariably subject to check by another officer.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the fact that this statement was made by this clerk on oath how can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his reply with that? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that, in view of the repercussions of this matter on large and important sections of our people, it will be dealt with at a higher level than a grade III clerk, and that a specific assurance will be given.
    Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member reads the answer given on 11th November and my answer he will see that a complete assurance was given.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the actions of this clerk are subject to inspection. Will he explain to the House what "subject to inspection" means? Does it mean that all the work of these lower grades is inspected?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It means, if the hon. Gentleman will take note of the words which I used, that their work is invariably subject to check by another officer.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Furnace Coke
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure that greater supplies of furnace coke are made available to the iron and steel industry.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Apart from the fact that the National Coal Board have standing instructions to meet in full the coal requirements of all coke ovens, special arrangements have been made for the production of furnace coke at certain Coal Board ovens and at part of the Beckton Gas Works where formerly coke of this type was not manufactured. In addition, supplies have been diverted from other consumers who are in a position to use gas coke instead of furnace coke.
    Mr. Erroll: Will these plants remove the bottleneck in furnace coke which hitherto has impeded output of steel?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think it can be said that so far as next winter is concerned there should be no interference at all. The long-term position naturally depends on the development of the programme for additional coke oven plants.

    Strike, Ayrshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the estimated loss of coal due to the recent strike in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Twenty-seven thousand tons.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister consider the advisability of getting in touch with the Coal Board to consult whether or not they had better abandon this policy of prosecutions which has had such unfortunate results?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is a matter which we must leave to the Coal Board themselves to decide.

  BANKSIDE POWER STATION
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if it is still his intention that Bankside Power Station should be oil fired.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that this extravagant use of fuel oil represents yet a further delay in the return of a more generous allowance of petrol for motorists?
  Mr. Gaitskell: This matter was fully debated in the House over a year ago and the circumstances will be familiar to hon. Members. I do not accept the implication that the use of fuel oil for this purpose in 1951 places any restriction on petrol at the moment.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds the erection of the new Bankside Power Station has been proceeded with when the results of the tests being under taken to discover whether it would emit fumes harmful to the fabric of nearby buildings will not be available till early next year.
  Mr. Gaitskell: As my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, explained as long ago as 10th June, 1947, in reply to a similar Question from my hon. Friend, the Government's technical advisers are satisfied that harmful sulphur fumes can be effectively eliminated. The tests on the pilot plant are solely for the purpose of selecting the most efficient method of gas washing. In view of the increasingly urgent need for new generating capacity in London it is only sensible, therefore, to proceed as quickly as possible with the erection of those parts of the station that will not be affected by the type of gas washing plant it is decided finally to instal.
  Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister promise, in accordance with the previous pledge given in this House, that if no way is found of making the fumes from this oil fuel harmless to St. Paul's the project will be abandoned?
  Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning made it perfectly plain that there
  558
  was no doubt about the practicability of eliminating the fumes. It is a question of the best way of doing it.
  Mr. Cooper: Is it not a fact that the most recent designs of power stations, which utilise heating power to the utmost, include district heating, and in those circumstances is it necessary, in fact, to site this new power station so close to the river where it will heat up the water of the Thames?
  Mr. Gaitskell: We cannot reopen that subject now.
  Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister give the House the name of any plant of this size where it has been effective?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I understand that Battersea has a plant of this kind.
  Mr. Keeling: As the statement made this afternoon is a flagrant breach of the Government's promise in this House, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT No. 2262
  Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Lord President of the Council why the provisions of Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 2262, came into effective operation eight days before the order was made.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Statutory Instrument to which the hon. Member refers declared the date on which the emergency that occasioned the passing of the Universities and Colleges (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, came to an end. In order to comply with Section 8 (2) of the Act, it was necessary for the date so declared to be prior to that on which the Statutory Instrument was made.
  Mr. Taylor: Is there any reason why the Statutory Instrument should not have been issued before it?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The issue had to be after the event, for the Statute so directed. The hon. Member, in the order of which he is complaining, will find language quite explicit, for it comes from the Statute itself.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (REGIONAL OFFICES)
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Lord President of the Council what functions are now performed by the regional offices of the Central Office of Information.
  Mr. Morrison: The general function of the regional offices of the Central Office of Information is to act as a common service information agency for all Government Departments at the regional level. Their specific tasks include the non-theatrical distribution of information films by means of mobile projection units; the provision of a service of lectures on economic and certain other subjects to factories and local organisations; conduct of the regional aspects of Government information and recruitment campaigns; arrangements for the touring of exhibitions; the distribution of display material; conduct of tours for overseas visitors sponsored by the oversea Department concerned; the provision of Press relations services for other Departments; the provision of industrial news and of works information services under the auspices of the regional boards for industry and their district committees.
  A somewhat fuller description of the work of the regional offices will appear in the Annual Report of the Central Office of Information for 1947/48 which I shall be presenting as a Command Paper in the course of the next few weeks.
  Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever necessary tasks these regional offices may perform they also consume a great deal of man-power, money and paper by pestering already busy people with numerous letters which serve no useful purpose and contain a tremendous amount of flapdoodle? Will he be so good as to reconsider the money spent by these offices with a view to restricting them to necessary purposes?
  Mr. Morrison: That question was a series of abstract, categorical, doctrinaire allegations, without the slightest element of substance, and might perhaps fairly be described as flapdoodle.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May we take it that this question of regional offices will be a suitable subject for the committee
  560
  which has been set up by the Government to inquire into the home information services?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, certainly.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter again in order to ascertain how many of the functions he mentioned are, in fact, discharged by the offices and how many would remain with them if the essential services were remitted to the central office?
  Mr. Morrison: This is, in principle, an economical arrangement. If there were not regional offices of the Central Office of Information the tendency would be for each State department to have its own separate regional organisation for the purpose. We have avoided that by allowing the C.O.I, to be the common service department. As I have said in answer to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), this matter will be within the competence of the committee which is inquiring into the cost of the information services.
  Captain Crookshank: Can the right lion. Gentleman tell us how much all this is costing?
  Mr. Morrison: The answer to that question has already been given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not this all propaganda for the Government?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.
  Mr. De la Bère: Yes. Sir.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Disputes (Intervention)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour what is his policy in regard to intervention in cases of industrial disputes; at what stage he intervenes in a situation that could result in an industrial dispute; and what policy is applied to prevent worsening relations between representative organisations when conditions give rise to differences.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The assistance of my Department in

    561
    resolving disputes is always readily available on the request of either or both parties concerned, and when disputes are apprehended my officers remind the parties of this. It is, however, my general policy not to intervene unless and until action by the parties under the established joint machinery for the industry has been exhausted.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: When it is difficult for individuals to act on their own because of the peculiar circumstances in which they find themselves, although it is obvious that they have a legitimate grievance, could not the officers of the Ministry deal with the matter, which might give rise to a dispute?
    Mr. Isaacs: We cannot deal with individual and personal disputes, but any dispute relating to an industry or a firm can be helped if the persons concerned will call upon the local employment officer.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of European voluntary workers working in England and Wales and the number Jiving in the county of Denbigh; what is their pay; whether their general conduct is satisfactory; and whether any of them have refused to work in agriculture.
    Mr. Isaacs: Approximately 75,000 E.V.Ws. have been placed in employment in Great Britain and 143 of them are now living in the county of Denbigh. These workers are employed at the same rate of wages and under the same conditions as comparable British workers. Their general conduct is satisfactory and, apart from a few isolated cases, all are carrying out their undertaking to work in the employment selected for them.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me the number working in the county of Denbigh, and if I bring to his notice a case of flagrant misconduct will he investigate it?
    Mr. Isaacs: I did not catch the nature of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question but whatever it was, if it concerned a case to be investigated, I will certainly do so. So far as the county
    562
    of Denbigh is concerned there are 136; men and seven women living in Denbigh and employed in agriculture. A number of these people, in respect of whom I have not the figures, are working in Denbigh and are living in hostels outside the county boundary.

    Professional Footballers (Award)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour what action he has taken to see that the National Arbitration Tribunal's Award No. 942 on the rates of wages and certain conditions of employment of professional footballers has been carried out; and in particular, if any organisation on the lines of a Whitley Council has yet been established.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have received no complaint that the rates of wages and conditions of employment set out in the award are not being carried out. It is for the parties concerned to take their own steps to enforce any rights which they may have acquired by reason of an award of the tribunal. As regards the second part of the Question, my information is that on 24th April last the matter was discussed between the parties but that so far no joint machinery has been established. The assistance of my Department is freely available if desired by either of the parties.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. I Friend aware that it is now 18 months since the tribunal recommended that all parties should be brought together in order that suitable machinery could be established to enable them to ventilate grievances and avoid friction? In view of that fact, will my right hon. Friend use his personal influence in order to get all parties together, and will he preside at the first meeting so that this machinery can be set in operation?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, except that I cannot preside at the first meeting because the first meeting has already taken place. They met on 27th April, I think it was, but I will exercise my personal influence to try to get the parties together again.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The meeting which was held at that time has not proved fruitful. In view of the need for the setting up of this machinery will my right hon. Friend now take action?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

    Colliery Strike, Ayrshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minis-of Labour what were the causes of the recent coal strike in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Isaacs: This unofficial strike followed a decision of the Ayr sheriff court awarding damages for breach of contract against 15 miners who took part in an unofficial strike at an Ayrshire colliery earlier in the year.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister pursue the same policy as he has promised in reply to a previous Question, to exercise his personal influence with the Coal Board that they should abandon these prosecutions, which have resulted in a loss of 27,000 tons of coal?
    Mr. Isaacs: On the contrary, I have no right to dictate in any way to the Coal Board but I do happen to know that the purpose of the Coal Board was not to get a monetary award but to bring home to the men that there is a contract for which they are liable and to which they should conform.

    Coal Industry (Recruits)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why the trial period, during which recruits to the coal mining industry have been permitted to obtain other employment, was reduced in April, 1948, from six months to three months; whether this reduction applied to any of those who entered before the reduction was announced; and how many recruits left the industry during the six month and three month trial periods, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: The reduction was made in agreement with representatives of the industry because it was felt that a three months' trial period was sufficient. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the Question, I regret that statistics are not available.
    Sir J. Mellor: Would not more recruits be attracted to the industry if the period were longer?
    Mr. Isaacs: We take the advice of the industry upon these matters, and upon that advice we accepted the period of three months.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to
    564
    ensure that any disciplinary measures adopted by the National Coal Board shall conform with the undertaking, given to the House of Commons on 24th July, 1946, by his Parliamentary Secretary, that coal miners, who are discharged from a colliery, will be at liberty to find themselves employment at other collieries.
    Mr. Isaacs: The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 24th July, 1946, has no relation to disciplinary measures, agreed by both sides of the industry, designed to deal with persistent absenteeism.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the National Coal Board are the sole employer in the industry and as coal miners are compulsorily held in the industry under the Control of Engagement Order, are not the men in fact in a cleft stick?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about disciplinary measures and I have answered that Question.

    Control of Engagement Order
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour if he willdefine the authority delegated by him to post offices for the purposes of the Control of Engagement Order; if he will identify the instrument by which he delegated such authority; and the powers under which such instrument was made.
    Mr. Isaacs: The authority given to head and sub-post offices is to make, between 1st November and 31st December, 1948, inclusive, direct temporary engagements of men and women, subject to the order, in order to deal with the additional work thrown on post offices during the period of Christmas pressure. The instrument by which such authority was delegated was a minute signed by one of the deputy secretaries to my Ministry on 8th October. The powers under which this instrument was made are contained in Section 2 (1) of the Control of Engagement Order, 1947, which enables the Minister to appoint any office as a "local office" for the purposes of this order, and thus put such an office in the same position in regard to the order as an employment exchange.

  DEATH PENALTY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WILSON HARRIS:
  71. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet arranged for an inquiry into the possibility of some mitigation of the capital penalty.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity for answering Question No. 71.
  On 22nd July, I informed the House that the question whether there are practical means of limiting the death penalty would be explored. The Government have given careful consideration to the question how this can best be done, and have decided to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose. The terms of reference and membership of the Royal Commission are still under consideration and will be announced in due course. At this stage, I can only say that the scope of the inquiry will be the questions whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, what alternative punishment can be substituted and what are the changes in the law and the prison system involved by any alternative punishment. The Commission will be invited to take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may be of value in considering these questions.

  EUROPEAN UNITY COMMITTEE (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES)
  Mr. Churchillasked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the names of the British representatives to sit on the Committee recently set up by the Governments of the live Brussels Treaty Powers to consider measures for the closer unity of Europe, and, in particular, the proposal to create a Consultative European Assembly without executive power.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Hon. Members will doubtless have seen the announcement of the names in the Press
  566
  today. They are: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Inverchapel, Sir Edward Bridges, Professor Wade and Mr. T. H. Gill.
  Mr. Churchill: Did the right hon. Gentleman, in coming to this decision, take into consideration the fact that the formation of this Committee arose out of The Hague Conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, out of The Hague Conference, and that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did his utmost to prevent or spoil that Conference and was everywhere regarded as a protagonist against the policy of a united Europe except upon a Socialist basis?
  The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in two respects. The question of closer unity in Western Europe has been considered, not only by The Hague Conference, but by the Governments concerned, and very practical steps have been taken by this Government in that direction. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had certain views with regard to The Hague Conference, but he was always strong in his support of the idea of Western European collaboration.
  Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that in his speeches the right hon. Gentleman has said that Western European unity is conditional on its being founded upon a Socialist Party basis?
  The Prime Minister: I do not understand that that is the fact at all.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to read the statements made by the colleague whom he has specially picked out for this task, and see whether he has any right whatever to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not done his very utmost to prevent European unity except on a Socialist Party basis?
  The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McAdam: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the fact that the first suggestion for the federation of European States was made in this House by the hon. Member for North Salford during a Debate on Foreign Affairs in November, 1945?
  Mr. Churchill: I think King Henry IV of Navarre was the first. There is one of these names which the Prime Minister read out about which I should like to ask him particularly, and that is the name of Sir Edward Bridges. Is it not rather a serious thing, and rather unfair to the distinguished gentleman in question, to involve the Permanent Head of the Civil Service of this country in controversy and partisan politics and in foreign politics, and did this not produce unfortunate results in the Civil Service in the case of Sir Horace Wilson?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman himself has suggested this danger with regard to the position of Sir Edward Bridges. It is really quite normal for Governments to employ civil servants when they have Government representatives going to a conference. I have never heard it suggested previously that, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), if he was attending an international conference and took a civil servant with him, that therefore that civil servant was considered to be a Conservative. It is the right hon. Gentleman's own prejudice.
  Mr. Churchill: Is not the right hon. Gentleman overlooking and slurring over the difference between civil servants engaged in Departments who only attend their Ministers, if necessary, in the course of Departmental duties, and involving the Permanent Head of the Civil Service in controversial politics?
  The Prime Minister: the phrase "controversial politics" comes entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. It is one of the right hon. Gentleman's curious prejudices that, if there happens to be a Labour Government, that is partisan, but, if there is a Conservative Government or a Government headed by himself, it is not partisan.
  Mr. Churchill: When the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of partisanship, does he realise that all the other Governments under the Brussels Treaty and Agreement have sent all-party delegations, in which the most eminent statesmen and former Prime Ministers of those countries have been involved, and that the French, in particular, have sent M. Leon Blum, M. Herriot and other very prominent representatives; and that,
  568
  in consequence, in choosing a representation of officials acting under instructions, he is putting himself and his party out of step, very much against the views of many of them, with the general movement to build up European unity, and is it not unfair to involve Sir Edward Bridges in a partisan transaction of that character?
  The Prime Minister: I have tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the letter he was good enough to send me, that in the case of France there is a Government composed of many parties. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have representatives of those parties—[An HON. MEMBER: "And outside."] I also pointed out to him, and hon. Members will note this, that four of these members are not Members of Parliament or representatives of the Government directly. It must also be pointed out that there are no representatives of the Chief Opposition parties in France.
  Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Communists?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, and General de Gaulle. The chief Opposition parties are not represented; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that this is an all-party delegation; it is a delegation representative largely of the Governmental parties in France.
  Mr. Churchill: This will have to be a matter of Debate at an early date, and I would ask my right hon. Friend when he deals with Business, to open this matter with the Lord President.
  Mr. Ronald Mackay: Is the Prime Minister aware in view of statements which have been made this afternoon, that well-wishers of the European movement, at any rate on this side of the House and outside as well, deplore greatly the way in which certain people are trying to depreciate the delegation which is going from this country? Is he also aware—and I put this point as one who at least led a delegation at The Hague Conference—that this conference taking place now will be represented by a delegation from this country fully equipped to deal with all the practical issues which have to be considered, and that we welcome the appointment of a

  569
  senior civil servant and we welcome the appointment of an eminent constitutional lawyer? Without in any way making comments on the delegations from the other countries, we at least know that the practical, constitutional and other difficult European problems that have to be considered by this Committee will be dealt with by a delegation thoroughly equipped for the purpose.
  Mr. Churchill: The penitent!
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite correct, and he realises that the work to be done here deals with practical questions. Therefore, we do not necessarily want to include a large number of orators from different parties.
  Mr. Churchill: May I venture to ask the Prime Minister if he will be so charitable, in virtue of the confession of submission which he has heard, as to extend his forgiveness to the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) for having defied the Socialist caucus in going to The Hague?
  Sir Arthur Salter: In view of the choice of chairman, does not the Prime Minister think it is important from an international point of view at present that he should make it clear that it is not the view of the British Government that they consider it should be a condition of entry into any form of Western Union that a free Parliamentary country should choose a Socialist Government?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that was perfectly obvious. If the right hon. Gentleman has read, and I am sure he has, the terms of the communiqué, he will see that the remit to this committee is a wide one, to consider all kinds of methods. There is no suggestion that it is tied down to one party.
  Mr. Churchill: Under the orders of the Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 22nd November—Committee and remaining stages of the Prize Bill;
570
Conclusion of Committee stage and remaining stages of the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Bill; and
Consideration of Motions to approve the draft Furniture Industry Development Council Order and the two draft Coast Protection Orders.
Tuesday, 23rd November—Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and
Report stage of the Iron and Steel [Money].
Wednesday, 24th November—Debate on Welsh Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. It may be found convenient to deal with industrial matters during the first half of the day and agriculture afterwards.
Thursday, 25th November—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday, 26th November — Second Reading of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and
Further progress will be made with the Judges Pensions (India and Burma) Bill, and the Colonial Loans Bill.
Mr. Eden: In view of a number of topics which seem to be active in the international sphere, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the near future we should like an occasion for a discussion of the international situation?
Mr. Morrison: The House is aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is taking a much deserved rest. I note the request of the right hon. Gentleman for a Debate on foreign affairs, and perhaps he will be good enough to allow me to consider the matter. We could, no doubt, pursue it through the usual channels.
Mr. Watkins: May I ask the Lord President of the Council why the Welsh Parliamentary Committee, or any of its officers, have not been consulted about the arrangements and the date of the Welsh Debate, and whether any Government statement is to be made with regard to the special considerations of Wales?
Mr. Morrison: With regard to the question of consultation. I think my hon.

571
Friend is misinformed. It is not the usual thing to consult the various groups in the House. Often there are consultations through the well-established usual channels, but we should involve ourselves in difficulties if I were to ask my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to notify groups of the House.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the Leader of the House deal with the second part of my hon. Friend's question and indicate whether any new announcement of Government policy will be made during the Debate?
Mr. Morrison: I could not say at this stage, but I think it is possible.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: May I ask if there will be an early opportunity to discuss the accounts of the airline Corporations?
Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman is in a unique position to persuade the Opposition to put down a Supply Day for this purpose.
Mr. George Thomas: Is the Lord President aware that if he had consulted the Welsh Parliamentary party, as he did last year, he would have found that we should like the date postponed for a little while, anxious as we are to have a Debate on Wales, because he knows there are things that are not quite settled yet?
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend, I am afraid, is on the verge of an indiscretion. We really are following the usual course. The trouble I am in is that we have postponed the Welsh Debate for a couple of weeks and, if we do not get it going, I am afraid the Welsh day will not arise until the middle of next year, when I think we should be legitimately open to criticism. We have followed a fairly usual course.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider a suggestion that the accounts of nationalised industries should be discussed upon a Supply Day? And will he bear in mind the rebuke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my right hon. Friend when the Chancellor said that at least one day would be available for the discussion of the finances of nationalised industries? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, make it available out of Government time?
Mr. Morrison: We have both got to be reasonable about this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you ever?"] Certainly. Up to now the Government have made their contribution out of Government time and the Opposition have made some contribution out of Supply time in the case of this new business of Debates on the socialised industries. In principle that is perfectly reasonable, and if the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is only trying to commit me to the Chancellor's one day of Government time, I will concede that right away.
Mr. Eden: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should understand the full import of his concession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman promised us one day for the accounts of each of the nationalised industries.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Referring to the question of civil aviation, does the Lord President recall that some months ago he himself said that the Government themselves would probably give time, and that it would not come out of Supply Days?
Mr. Morrison: No; I have never accepted the doctrine in that extreme form. I am always for the forces of compromise and moderation in these matters.
Mr. Churchill: No violence.
Mr. Morrison: The Leader of the Opposition is much more likely to become violent than I am. This is a development of new business. There have been socialised industries for a number of years, of course, but in view of the number of them, I think it is one of those things on which we ought to make arrangements between ourselves, and I think the Government should make their contribution and the Opposition should make its contribution. I do suggest to the House that that is a fair way to handle this matter.
Mr. Erroll: Surely, since the Ministries controlling the nationalised industries continue to grow, we should use the Supply Days to discuss the affairs of the Ministries themselves and Government time to discuss the affairs of the nationalised industries, the activities of which are not questionable in this House.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is altogether wrong. He really must try and get a philosophy about this.
Mr. Erroll: I have.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has not. These industries are partly questionable—
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Very questionable.
Mr. Morrison: —and Ministers have certain responsibilities. In the case of the civil airlines there is a public subsidy, which indeed makes it very much a matter for the Minister.

NOTICES OF MOTION (SIGNATURES)
Sir Ian Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to ask you a question of which I have given you notice: if arrangements can be made to publish on the Order Paper the name of a Member of this House who takes his name off a Notice of Motion to which he has previously given support.
Mr. Speaker: What happens now is this: all Notices of Motion for an early day are filed in the Table Office, where is also kept a list of all hon. Members whose names were attached to the original Notice of Motion and of hon. Members who added their names subsequently. When an hon. Member instructs the Table Office that he wishes to withdraw his name from a Motion, the Clerks in the Table Office delete his name from the list. No machinery at present exists for publishing the names of hon. Members who have so withdrawn their names. If a general desire exists that names withdrawn should be published, this could be done by a memorandum at the end of the Votes and Proceedings.
Sir I. Fraser: While thanking you for that answer, Mr. Speaker may I submit that the act of supporting a Motion is a public act of an hon. Member in his capacity as a Member and may influence the country and his constituents; that consequently, the act of withdrawing support is an equally important public act, and that some means should be found whereby information of that act can be available not merely to Members of this House, but to constituents and to the country as a whole.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: May I also raise a point which arises from that made by the hon. Gentleman: what is the position of a Member of this House who signs a Motion under a misapprehension or, in some cases, under a misrepresentation of the position and then withdraws his name?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think this is the right moment for debating this matter which, no doubt, can be pursued through the usual channels and the general opinion of Members ascertained. If I might say so—if it is not an impertinence on my part—I should advise hon. Members always to be very careful in what they sign.

DIVISIONS (DURATION)
Captain John Crowder: Regarding the point of which I have given you private notice, Mr. Speaker, concerning the incident last night when the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) raised a point of Order during one of the Divisions, could you, Sir, give your Ruling to the House as to what further time, if any, is available to hon. Members to pass through the Division Lobbies after you have given the order, "Lock the doors"?
Mr. Speaker: After I have given the order, "Lock the doors," that is the very second when the doors ought to be locked. The keys should be in the doors and when I say "Lock" the keys should be turned. It really is no good hon. Members who arrive here and hear "Lock the doors" thinking they can do a sprint and get into the Lobby in time.
I place no blame on anybody for last night's incident. I want to make that perfectly clear. I think the door was open. It was not shut; I think it should have been. Now it really is the rule that when I say, "Lock the doors," the keys should be turned. I take care that a little time extra is given because at the moment we are not in a very convenient place; the time is not really strictly regulated; a little more is given than we used to give in the old House. Therefore, there is no excuse if hon. Members are not there when I say, "Lock the doors." Then, I am afraid, they must be stopped from voting.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind, as I have no doubt you have, that there must be some physical interlude in time between the issue of an order and its exact execution, may I say that I trust that no reprimand will be administered to the official of the House who allowed himself to be overborne by the impetuosity of the hon. Member who has been so properly rebuked.
Mr. Speaker: I think I have made the position perfectly clear. I said that there was no blame on anybody. My impression was that he did not have the key already in the door and took some time in putting it in.
Mr. Thurtle: In connection with this incident, Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to say that I was sitting below the Gangway very near to the door and that the hon. Member for Oxford, in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) assaulted the doorkeeper, was quite wrong? There was no sign of that.
Mr. Speaker: It was quite clear last night when I gave my Ruling. I think that if the hon. Member read what I said, he would find that it did not quite agree with the statement by the hon. Member for Oxford that any assault was carried out.
Mr. Speaker: The Attorney-General.
Commander Pursey: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), may I ask a question of the Lord President about the matter of names on the Order Paper: whether the Conservative Party, including those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at present sitting on the Front Bench, previously voted against the Select Committee—
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we have finished with that point. The Attorney-General.

BILLS PRESENTED
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL
  "to make legal aid and advice in England and Wales, and in the case of members of the Forces legal advice elsewhere, more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ede and the Solicitor-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
  "to authorise the Treasury to contribute towards the cost of a national theatre, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; supported by Mr. Silkin, Mr. Jay and Mr. Hardman; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 20.]
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  "to authorise the increase of the number of judges of the Court of Session to fifteen, and to amend the law relating to the sessions of that Court, to the appointment of the Lord Ordinary in Exchequer causes and to the office of sheriff substitute," presented by Mr. Secretary Woodburn; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Glenvil Hall, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Mr. J. J. Robertson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 111.

Division No. 7.]

AYES

[4.0 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

Marquand, H. A.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Gallacher, W.

Mayhew, C. P.

Alpass, J. H.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Medland, H. M.

Attewell, H. C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mellish, R. J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Gibbins, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Austin, H. Lewis

Gilzean, A.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Awbery, S. S.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mitchison, G. R.

Ayles, W. H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Monslow, W.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Morgan, Dr. H B

Bacon, Miss A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morley, R.

Balfour, A.

Grey, C. F.

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

Grierson, E.

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

Barstow, P. G.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Barton, C.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Moyle, A.

Battley, J. R.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Murray, J. D

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gunter, R. J.

Nally, W.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Guy, W. H.

Naylor, T. E.

Benson, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Beswick, F.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

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

Blyton, W. R.

Hardy, E. A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Boardman, H.

Harrison, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

Haworth, J.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bramall, E. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parker, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hicks, G.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hobson, C. R.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Brown, George (Belper)

Holman, P.

Pearson, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Peart, T. F.

Byers, Frank

Horabin, T. L.

Perrins, W.

Carmichael, James

Hoy, J.

Popplewell, E.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hubbard, T.

Porter, E, (Warrington)

Champion, A. J.

Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)

Pritt, D. N.

Chater, D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Proctor, W. T.

Chetwynd, G R

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Cluse, W. S.

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

Ranger, J.

Cobb, F. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Rankin, J.

Cocks, F. S.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Reeves, J.

Collindridge, F.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Collins, V. J.

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

Richards, R.

Colman, Miss G. M

Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G. A.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Robens, A.

Cook, T. F.

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

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Johnston, Douglas

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Cove, W. G.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Royle, C.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Sargood, R.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Keenan, W.

Scollan, T.

Daines, P.

Kenyon, C.

Scott-Elliott, W.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Kinley, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

Sharp, Granville

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lang, G.

Shurmer, P.

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

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Deer, G.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Delargy, H. J

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Skinnard, F. W.

Diamond, J.

Levy, B. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Dobbie, W.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

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

Dodds, N. N.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Snow, J. W.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lipson. D. L.

Solley, L. J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Stross, Dr. B.

Edelman, M.

Longden, F.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Lyne, A. W.

Swingler, S.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McAdam, W

Sylvester, G. O.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McEntee, V. La T

Symonds, A. L

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mack, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Ewart, R.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Fairhurst, F.

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

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Fernyhough, E.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

McLeavy, F.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Follick, M.

MacPherson, M. (Stirling)

Thurtle, Ernest

Foot, M. M.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Tiffany, S.

Forman, J. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfeld)

Titterington, M. F.

Tolley, L.

Watkins, T. E

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Willis, E.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Weitzman, D.

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

West, D. G.

Woods, G. S

Vernon, Maj W. F

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

Wyatt, W.

Viant, S P

Wilkes, L.

Yates, V. F.

Walkden, E

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Walker, G H

Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.

Warbey, W N

Williams, R. W (Wigan)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)

Odey, G. W.

Astor, Hon M.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Peake, Rt Hon. O

Birch, Nigel

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

Pickthorn, K.

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

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Bossom, A. C.

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

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Bower, N.

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

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E H.

Renton, D.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Roberts, P. G (Ecclesall)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Lambert, Hon. G.

Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Langford-Holt, J.

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Bullock, Capt. M

Law, Rt Hon. R. K.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Butcher, H. W

Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A H

Savory, Prof. D. L

Carson, E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Scott, Lord W.

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Churchill, Rt Hon. W. S

Low, A. R. W.

Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Corbett, Lt.-Col. U

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

Studholme, H. G.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

McFarlane, C. S

Sutcliffe, H

Darling, Sir W. Y.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Davidson, Viscountess

Maclean, F. H R (Lancaster)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

De la Bere, R

Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

Thorp, Brigadier R A F

Digby, S. W

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

Donner, P. W.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Walter

Marlowe, A. A H

Wakefield, Sir W W

Erroll, F. J.

Marples, A. E.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Marsden, Capt A

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

Fox, Sir G.

Marshall, D (Bodmin)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

Mellor, Sir J

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gammans. L D

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gates, Maj. E. E

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C

Gridley, Sir A.

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

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

Grimston, R. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Mullan, Lt. C. H

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harden, J R E.

Nutting, Anthony

Major Conant and

Brigadier Mackeson.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to wireless telegraphy, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) the expenses incurred by the advisory committee to be established under that Act, to such extent as may be determined by the Postmaster-General with the consent of the Treasury, including such sums in respect of the expenses of the members of the committee as may be so determined;

  (b) the expenses incurred by the appeal tribunal to be established under that Act, to such extent as aforesaid, including such sums by way of fees or other remuneration to, and in respect of the expenses of, the members or persons acting as members of the tribunal, as may be so determined;

  (c) any expenses incurred by the Postmaster-General for the purposes of that Act;

  and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Postmaster-General under that Act and any fines imposed for offences under that Act."

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of Wireless Telegraphy.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: Could we have a word of explanation whether this Clause embodies anything which is not covered by existing enactments?
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): In the main it is a repetition of the 1904 Act, but it is wider. A lot of things have happened since 1904; science has been at work and radar has been brought in and lots of other things which necessitate wireless. They are covered in this Clause and in that sense it is an alteration.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Fees and charges for wireless telegraphy licences.)
The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) desire to move the first Amendment. If he will forgive me for saying so, it is not at all clear. It does not say whether the 20s. to which it refers means 20s. per week, or year or what period. Unless the hon. Member presses it, I should prefer not to select the Amendment.
Mr. Grimston: Perhaps it might be made clear by a manuscript Amendment. The intention is that it shall refer to 20s. a year, which is of course the charge for a licence at the present time.
The Chairman: I will call the hon. Member to move the Amendment.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that the amount payable to the Postmaster-General in respect of a broadcasting receiving licence (excluding television) shall not exceed the sum of twenty shillings."
No new power is concerned here, because the Postmaster-General has had power, by regulation, to impose a charge, which will be maintained, for wireless receiving licences. This charge was raised comparatively recently from 10s. to 20s., and the purpose of this Amendment is to put a ceiling upon that charge and to require the Postmaster-General to come back to the House if he wishes to raise it. It will be observed that television has been excluded from the Amendment. We leave the Postmaster-General free to raise the charge for television. I believe that I am right in saying that in the last increase of 10s. per year in the charge for a wireless receiving licence, some amount was provided for increased charges in respect of television. We think, therefore, that the ordinary wireless listener has been asked to pay quite enough for his licence by being required to pay 20s. per year. Also, we are continually seeing costs rising in every direction today, and we think it is high time that a statutory stop should be put upon one in respect of which we see no reason for any increase for some time to come.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I should like to put a further point to the Postmaster-General. He knows my view already. Not only have I made it in

583
a speech quite recently, but I have made it on many occasions in this Parliament. I agree with the aim of this Amendment to put a ceiling of £1 upon the charge for a wireless receiving licence, but for my own part I should like to see that ceiling fixed at a lower figure. I take this opportunity once more to refresh the mind of the Postmaster-General about the heavy pressure which some people are bearing because of the high cost of living.
It is necessary, and it is within the confines of this Amendment, to point out the fact, which is extremely important, that it is no longer any use His Majesty's Government viewing the question of broadcasting as a luxury or anything of that kind. The Government and previous Governments have broadcast, and Governments that are to come will broadcast, from time to time, matters which are of considerable and vital importance to the people. By virtue of the fact that they take advantage of the radio, the possession of a radio set is made essential to many people. Therefore, the charge that we are discussing is an extremely heavy burden, particularly on a great number of people in the rural areas. I address to the Postmaster-General for his deep consideration my view that, while I agree that the limit of charge should be confined as proposed by this Amendment, I should like to see the overall charge reduced.
4.15 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I read this Amendment with a good deal of fear and trepidation. There was nothing to indicate whether the 20s. was to cover a week, a month or a year. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) for his elucidation of that matter. The position at the moment is that the fee for the licence can be arbitrarily decided, without reference to Parliament. Under the new provision which we have inserted in this Bill it will not be competent for my right hon. Friend or for the Government to increase or reduce the charge for a wireless licence without reference to Parliament. We have to lay a regulation before each House and when such a regulation is laid it can be prayed against, and Members will have an opportunity of stating whether they are in favour of or opposed to the proposal.
584
I would remind the hon. Member for Westbury that when the charge was increased from 10s. to £1, the information was given to the House as a result of a question which he placed on the Order Paper. We have, in this legislation, met the point of view of hon. Members opposite. I do not want to embark on a discussion as to whether 20s. is too much or too little. My concern is with the main principle, the fact that we can decide this matter by a vote of the House of Commons. That is a considerable advance on existing legislation, and I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment.
Mr. Erroll: Does what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said mean that any changes in the price of an ordinary wireless receiving licence will in future be subject to a negative or positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Skinnard: Does that also apply to a television licence?
Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Turton: Does the fact that the procedure is to be by way of an affirmative or negative Resolution mean that the Resolution will be considered by way of a Prayer after 10 p.m., or will the Government bring a positive Resolution before the House of Commons?
Mr. Hobson: It will be by way of a negative Resolution.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out from "person," to "the," in line 9.
This Amendment has been put down by way of inquiry. It will be seen that the provision it concerns is one whereby blind persons are excused from having to pay a fee for a wireless licence. The words which we are seeking to delete do not give that privilege to any blind person who may be in a public or charitable institution or in a school. There may be cases in which a person who is so resident has to have a wireless licence, and we cannot see why, in such circumstances, such a person should not have the benefit of this Clause of the

585
Bill. I should be grateful if the Postmaster-General could explain the purpose of these words.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: We think that the Amendment is not necessary because those persons who are affected, that is, blind persons resident in a public or charitable institution or in a school, do not and will not have to take out separate wireless receiving licences. In such places one licence covers any number of receiving sets and extension leads therefrom used by the inmates and the staff who are resident in the institution. The premises are covered by a single licence taken out by the institution or by some member of the permanent staff on their behalf. That covers the blind inmates, and there is no point in enabling them to take out a separate licence. They are covered by the one.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does not a licence in respect of such a charitable institution have to be paid for?
Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Cannot some arrangement be made for non-payment in these cases also? It seems a little hard that when blind persons are in an institution, a licence has to be paid for whereas blind persons outside get such a licence free. Should not that be put right?
Mr. Paling: Only one licence has to be paid for. In most cases it covers people other than blind people, such as nurses domestic staff, doctors, etc.
Mr. D. Marshall: I am not quite clear on one point. Suppose there is a certain form of charitable institution which may not be in existence at the present time, a certain form of house set up for blind people to reside in. Let us assume that someone gave a certain man or woman a small portable wireless set so that when they went out into the garden they could carry it with them and use it. How does this Clause work in those circumstances? Does it mean that because he is residing in an institution it would be classified as charitable, and therefore because wireless was already available in the main building he would not need to have a licence?
Mr. Paling: If he is blind he does not pay a licence.
Mr. Grimston: He does not have to pay it if he is resident in an institution?
Mr. Paling: If he is a member of an institution one licence is sufficient to cover anybody in the institution. One licence would have to be pall for. That licence provides, not only for the blind people, but all the rest of the staff who are not blind. If anyone wished to give a blind person a set, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) because he is blind he does not have to pay a licence.
Mr. Turton: The point in which I am interested is not so much with regard to a public institution as a school. If there is a small voluntary school for the blind, it will mean they will have to pay a licence fee which the individual child would not have to pay if it was not at the school, and that seems to me extremely harsh. There would be cases where children were not in that school the whole of the time. If they have their wireless set at their home and take it to school it will mean, merely because they are resident part time in the school, that a licence will have to be paid. While I see the force of the remarks of the Postmaster-General regarding those resident in a public or charitable institution, I do not think that a similar view can be held regarding blind children in a school, and I hope that he will reconsider the matter.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Postmaster-General make a little more clear what he means by "institution"? Could he describe whether this covers hospitals which have not been taken over under the National Health Act, such as the Royal Masonic Hospital and the hospital at Manor Field Park. We should have clearly described what the word means, otherwise there may be a considerable amount of complaint.
Mr. Paling: My information is, "Blind persons resident in public or charitable institutions or in a school," which seems to me to be pretty wide.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is a question which arises with regard to the amount chargeable for the ordinary receiving licence. In view of what has been said in the course of the discussion

587
on the Amendments, are we to take it that there is a possibility in the near future that the charge of 20s. will be increased; because if that is not the possibility, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been glad to accept the Amendment. Perhaps he could give us some information regarding that matter. We were told that it would be quite all right without the Amendment, because any alteration in charge would be bound to come before this House in a regulation to which the House could either assent or dissent. On reading the Bill, I am not sure that that is quite right, and I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain—if what we were told by the Assistant Postmaster-General is right—what is the meaning of the proviso in Clause 2, Subsection (1). That says:
"Provided that the regulations made may contain provisions authorising, in such cases as are not otherwise dealt with by the regulations, the charge by the Postmaster-General of such sums, whether on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper."
From that it would appear to mean that if he has a regulation dealing with the licence for television sets, that regulation may contain authority for him to charge such sums as he may think proper for broadcasting reception licences, in which case no regulation dealing with the increase of the licence would come before this House. I do not know whether that is the right interpretation of the proviso, but it seems capable of bearing that interpretation. I should be glad, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman would explain first, what the proviso is meant to cover, and, secondly, to tell us, if he can, that it cannot cover the reserving to him of power to fix the amount charged for a broadcasting receiving licence outside a regulation.
Mr. Paling: The hon. and learned Member asked me if the broadcasting receiving licence was likely to be altered in the future. I am afraid I cannot answer that. It depends on a lot of circumstances and events. The proviso allows for charges to be made for all kinds of licences. A broadcasting receiving licence is a receiving licence, but there are transmitting licences also, and the charge varies according to the nature of the transmitter and the purpose for which the licence is granted.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we to take it from that answer that the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General is entirely wrong, and that the charge for the broadcasting receiving licence may be fixed by the Postmaster-General under this proviso outside the terms of a regulation?
Mr. Paling: No, Sir.
Mr. Erroll: I wish to raise a point regarding the certification of a blind person. It seems to me that the authorities who may certify the blindness of a person receiving a free licence are very few indeed. According to paragraph (b) any person resident in England and Wales may be certified only by the council of the county or county borough in which he is ordinarily resident. This certification will only free a blind person from the expenditure of 20s. which is not a very large sum on present day standards. Considerably larger sums of money may be involved in applying for certification for a much larger number of people in connection with the old age pension tobacco relief form, and this may be certified by a large number of people including justices of the peace, Members of Parliament, teachers and clergymen.
It cannot be easy for blind persons to write or to ascertain who is the local authority. It must be quite a complicated business for such persons to obtain this certificate, and it may involve them in an expenditure of some shillings out of the £1 to be saved. If the certification were to be made easier along the lines of the old age pension tobacco relief form, or in the case of the British passport, it would enable the blind person to obtain the necessary certificate more easily. I hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this point, even though he may not be able to give an immediate answer.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Hobson: The position is that local authorities generally have responsibilities for blind people other than that of registering them for the purpose of having a wireless set free of charge. I think that we are wise in maintaining the existing proviso for registering under the local authority in which they are resident or in which they may not be resident if they have a set in another part.
Captain Crookshank: The Postmaster-General has done himself less than justice. I am afraid that he has rather confused the issue about the charge for these licences. I hope that he can clear up our difficulty or, if not, that he will undertake to have the wording looked at again before we reach the next stage of this Bill. When asked the purpose of the proviso to Clause 2 (1) he pointed out that, of course, there might be different scales of licences for different purposes. He instanced transmitters. But that, of course, is clear already, not in the proviso but in the main part of Subsection (1), which says:
"… different provision may be made in relation to different licences according to the nature, terms, provisions, …"
and so on. That has nothing to do with the proviso. It is already there. As I read it, it means, in conjunction with what the Minister said, that any scale of licences, not only for what we call the ordinary broadcast receiving set or the television set, but every kind of licence which comes within his purview, in future can be dealt with by regulation, and the regulations will come before the House. If that is the meaning of those words, then I cannot sec what the proviso is about. The Minister said that it was to cover such cases as transmitters, but it does not because they are dealt with in the main portion of this Subsection. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum which, of course, does not have any force and is there to guide our halting footsteps through this Measure, says:
"… all fees and charges for licences are to be prescribed by regulations, except where the regulations otherwise provide …"
It is exactly that exception, which is what this proviso refers to, that we are trying to elucidate. What exactly does it mean? It looks as if there is some loophole, otherwise there is no point in the proviso. It appears that there is some loophole by which some form of licence, or some conditions attaching to some form of licence, can be effected without coming under the regulations and without coming before this House. That seems to be the ordinary common sense of it. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what these cases may be.
Mr. Paling: The proviso to the Subsection provides that, in cases not otherwise dealt with by the regulations—that
590
is in the case of licences for which charges are not specifically prescribed in the regulations—the regulations may authorise the Postmaster-General to charge such sums, on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may, in the particular case, appear to him to be proper. An imaginary example is that of a licence to receive televised pictures of a particular event, such as the Olympic Games, for the purpose of showing them in a hall to members of the public who pay for admission. In such a case it might well be desired to relate the charge for the licence to, say, the number or the price of the seats in the hall. While the proviso will not be used only in respect of licences for showing televised pictures to the public, it is indispensable in connection with such licences. The use of television in cinemas is a topical and important subject. The basis, or bases, of charges for such licences will have to be developed.
Captain Crookshank: This is indeed a most interesting field which is being opened up though, of course, it is entirely different from what the Postmaster-General said at first. He said that this had something to do with licences for transmitting stations. I must say that I had not thought that even in the most technical sense, that referred to what he has now said. Now, he is trying to cover the case which may—and lots of people hope will—arise under which television will be linked up with the ordinary cinemas and we shall be able to have television displays of current events. I have seen in the Press recently that negotiations are going on about something like that. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first place. I am very glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) took up this point, because this is the occasion on which to get it cleared up.
Am I to understand that what is intended now is not what one would have thought, but that there is to be some arrangement by which the Postmaster-General would say to a cinema, or to an organisation of cinemas, "If you desire to show on your screen current events through television, there will be a licence fee payable?" Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in future, there is not to be merely a licence issued to a cinema

591
in the same way as a licence is issued for a public house, when it does not depend on the number of bottles of beer which are sold or the number of glasses that are being washed up at any one moment? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the licence depends in each case on the number of seats or the locality of a theatre? Does he mean that there are to be differential licences for cinemas which intend to organise television displays?
If that is the case, it is something rather novel in the licensing system for this form of entertainment. But if that is the intention, I quite see that some words such as these in the last line may be required:
"… as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper."
Does that mean that a very large cinema will have to pay a very high licence fee in comparison with, say, a small news theatre, for showing exactly the same event by television? Is that what is intended? If so, again I suggest that it might be desirable to make the position more clear in the Bill. After all, we are enacting something. We were reminded earlier that the Wireless Telegraphy Acts have been in existence since 1904. Therefore, this Bill, I suppose by analogy, is likely to last for a long time before it is revised. Let us, therefore, make the position clear. I am very glad to know now that this has nothing at all to do with transmission but is concerned with television in cinemas.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) have succeeded in making this Clause appear to be somewhat confused. I do not think that the interpretation of this Clause is that which they have suggested. It is more a case of ingenuity than interpretation. Of course, obviously it does not depend on the number of seats in a cinema. That is a ridiculous basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what the Postmaster-General said] That may be. I am giving purely my own opinion on this matter. I think that the Clause intends that there should be defined a catalogue of licences—a schedule or a list. But beyond that there may be certain uses which require a licence and which are not dealt with in the regulations.
592
This business is after all in an experimental stage. It is for the purpose of that residue which is not dealt with, and which cannot be dealt with immediately in the regulations, that this reservation is made. Thereafter, as nothing is contained in the regulations showing precisely what the fee is for that specified licence, if there are other types of licence it will be left with the Postmaster-General to say what should be the fee. That is the clear interpretation of this Clause. The efforts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite have brought into the question a very definite element of confusion.
Mr. William Shepherd: Very soon everybody will be confused about this proviso. As usual, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has not lent any aid to the Debate. I want to ask the Postmaster-General precisely what types of licences must be covered by regulation and precisely what type of licences or activities come under the proviso. That is a simple question, but we have had two or three answers to it up to now. I ask the Postmaster-General to give us an official answer. I am sure that there must be an official answer in the Post Office.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). Having listened to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I am more confused now than ever I was. The three previous speeches have been different. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should study this subject with his civil servants and give us a clear definition of what he means.
Mr. Charles Williams: I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), because I consider that, for once, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) was almost less confused than the Government. We ought not to abuse him on this question, because he has thrown rather less dark-

593
ness on the subject than he usually does. The proviso says:
"Provided that the regulations made may contain provisions authorising, in such cases as are not otherwise dealt with by the regulations, the charge by the Postmaster-General of such sums."
I am not yet clear about this and I cannot see how I can vote for this Clause until I know approximately what sort of sums the Postmaster-General has in his mind. He is generally very good. When I want to buy a 2½d. stamp he knows exactly how many coppers I have to pay for it. Why cannot he tell us more in this case? Perhaps some of my hon. and learned Friends will tell me how I am to explain precisely what this means to the people who write to me, because that would save me a lot of time and correspondence with the Postmaster-General to find out what he means and what he is doing in the Bill. If I can have that answer now I shall be able to get on much quicker and save the Postmaster-General a lot of trouble answering my correspondence.
The proviso goes on:
"Whether on the issue or renewal of the licence or subsequently, as may in the particular case appear to him to be proper."
In a case of this kind we ought to have something a little more definite. Can the Postmaster-General tell us a little more? How will he interpret the word "proper" and what sort of line will he take? I hope the Government will be able to throw much more light on this Clause before we go any further because it is one of the vital Clauses of the Bill and it is essential that we should know what we are doing in a matter of this kind.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Henry Strauss: The main Clause, coupled with the proviso, gets as near to complete incomprehensibility as anything achieved in any recent Measure by the Government. I have great sympathy with the Minister and his colleague because if ever there was a case when they were entitled to the assistance of a Law Officer of the Crown, it is on this Clause. I hope that, either before the next stage in this House, or, at any rate, before the Bill goes to another place where it will he subject to considerable legal criticism, this will be looked into. As far as one
594
can guess the meaning of the proviso, the effect is this. Under the chief Clause—I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—before we get to the proviso at all, the right hon. Gentleman has power to make almost every variation he likes.
The effect of the proviso is that he can put in a provision to say that if he makes a complete mess of drafting the main regulations he can nevertheless charge anything he likes subsequently. Whether that is actually the effect or not I do not know. While I admire the courage of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) in thinking that for a moment he understood the Clause and the proviso, I sympathise very much with the Minister who, I believe, has no idea what it means but very courteously read out the brief that was given to him. I hope that before the next stage some sense will be put into the Clause.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Really, we must have an answer from the Postmaster-General to the points which have been raised, We have had an effort by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to throw light on the subject, but the only light which has emerged clearly to the Committee is that, in spite of the assurance that the prices of licences will be fixed by regulation, the right hon. Gentleman has power under this proviso to fix the amount for licences outside any regulations without making regulations, without putting the amount in any regulations, and so without any power of this House to pray against them. That is quite clearly understandable from the proviso. What the right hon. Gentleman has not said, and what he really must say, is why he wants this power to act on his own in fixing the prices for licences in addition to the power for fixing the prices for licences by regulation.
He first told us that it was for transmitting sets. Now he has told us, reading out a statement, that it is for television, and that the price must be fixed according to the number of seats, and perhaps the locality, and perhaps the class of cinema in which the television is being shown. I should have thought that that was the very case for demanding that the scale fixed for these things

595
should be contained in a regulation so that this House could pray against it if it required to do so and that it should not just be left to the Postmaster-General to fix the price on his own initiative without this House having anything to say about it. It is a tremendous power for the Postmaster-General. He may dislike one cinema proprietor and say, "The licence for you will be so much." He may think it proper to discourage that cinema proprietor from having television shows. One does not know, but to let the Postmaster-General have complete and unfettered discretion to fix the price of a licence for one individual at one figure and for another at a different figure, is wrong.
I ask the Postmaster-General to say that he does not really require this power of fixing prices outside the regulations. I also ask him to confirm that the content of this proviso makes the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General inaccurate.
Mr. Hobson: No.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Quite inaccurate.
Mr. Hobson Mr. Hobson rose—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. If he will follow the argument he will see that it makes his statement inaccurate. He said that a broadcasting receiving licence fee could only be increased by regulation. If under this proviso the Postmaster-General makes regulations fixing the television licence fee and reserving to himself under the regulations power to fix charges for other licences, he could then fix the charge for a broadcast receiving licence without it ever appearing in a regulation. I do not say that he would do that, but I do say that, under those words, he could do it, and the fact that he could, quite clearly makes the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General wrong in that respect.
Obviously, I do not blame him if he did not fully appreciate the effect of this proviso, but, equally obviously, this proviso, which creates so much uncertainty, should not remain in this Bill in its present form. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not in a position
596
to deal with these points today, will give a very strong undertaking to give all that has been said the most serious consideration, and reproduce this proviso—if one has to be in the Bill at all—in a very different form.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I will certainly do that. Most of the charges to be made are in respect of licences about which we know, and for which we can fix charges without any difficulty, and put them into a regulation or regulations. But there is a class of licence which we shall have to issue, even now, perhaps, and in the near future, for which we cannot possibly know the charge, because we do not yet know the circumstances of the licence. The matter I mentioned was the cinema licence for showing television. We shall have to discuss such a licence in relation, perhaps, to the seating capacity of the cinema, and other things also, but, at the moment, we cannot fix the charge. We have inserted the proviso in order to cover that kind of difficulty.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: But when the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind as to the basis on which he will make the charge, why not put that basis in a regulation?
Mr. Paling: When we have made up our minds about this it will appear in regulations, as do all charges about which we know.
Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry if I do not understand, but, so far as I can understand, surely, the matter is now made much worse than it was before. What is now said is that there will be a class of users of these instruments and that the Government have not at present any idea at all what will be the appropriate charges for that class. No attempt is now made to define that class. There is a rough indication that some may or may not be cinema proprietors. What is said is that the class which is to pay charges least predictable under the Bill shall he liable to pay charges about which the Government are not bound even to issue any sort of regulations in advance, but that the charges may be fixed specifically instead of generally.
It seems to me, with respect, the most extraordinary exercise of power that His Majesty's Government should purport to

597
take the power—I must apologise for my throat—to lay unpredictable charges upon specific persons to be chosen by a Minister, which Minister has authority to issue general regulations in such matters, but, in these cases, prefers not to. I am not quite certain if I have it right, but, as far as I can see, that is what is being claimed. If that is what is being claimed, that is more than the House of Commons has ever permitted to anyone before. Surely, it is more than has before been asked for by any Minister in the House of Commons, and a great deal more than ought ever to be granted.
Mr. Harrison: I believe that the 1904 Act contained a very similar provision to the one we are discussing.
Mr. Grimston: I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, but, really, the last remarks of the Postmaster-General have confused the issue still more. Apparently, what he is doing here is to take powers to make charges without coming back to this House. He gave my right hon. Friend, as an illustration of where he might want to do that, the case of a cinema showing television. Later on, when it was put to him that he ought not to introduce a new system of licences without coming to the House, he used the same illustration to show that is where he would seek regulations. In fact, he contradicted himself.
It is obvious that the matter is in an unsatisfactory position at the moment. We should like to raise it again on the Report stage, but we are in this difficulty, that we cannot say what Amendments the Chair will select on the Report stage. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking to consider this matter in the light of the discussion in Committee and that he will introduce an Amendment on Report stage in order to give us a better explanation of what the position is after he and his official advisers have had the opportunity of reading this Debate? It seems that we can only leave the position as it is at the moment if he will give that undertaking.
Mr. Paling: I have already said that I will give that undertaking.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Regulations as to wireless telegraphy.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Erroll: I see that in this Clause the Postmaster-General may describe the things to be done, or not to be done, in connection with any station for wireless telegraphy. I should like to make an inquiry in this connection with regard to wireless masts. Some of the wireless transmitting stations which have been erected for police and other purposes are very large and apt to be a serious interference with the amenities of individual locations. To what extent will the Postmaster-General make use of these powers if, indeed, they are ever conferred upon him, to ensure that wireless masts are concealed as far as practicable, and are located in positions likely to cause the least interference with the natural amenities of a district?
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I think the answer is very definitely that we have to have regard to the amenities of the places where we erect these masts. In this connection it comes to my mind that one of the first jobs I did when I came to the Post Office, was in connection with the agitation over the erection of a mast at White Horse Hill. We considered the matter, and altered the location of the mast.
Mr. C. Williams: I should like a little explanation of one point in the proviso. It says:
"Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall require any person to concede any form of right of entry into a private dwelling-house for …"
certain purposes. Why is it necessary to put in that proviso? What it means is that the Post Office have no right to go to a person and say, "You must give us the right of entry"? Have they been doing this in the last two or three years? Is it something they have been doing which they ought not to have done, because, if so, I think we ought to be told how long it has been going on. I welcome the fact that it is proposed to do away with the right of entry. I am not opposing this in any way, but I should like an explanation.
Mr. Paling: We have not the right of entry into any house for the purpose of inspecting a wireless receiver.
Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I have said, but why is this proviso put in? Have they been doing something which ought not to have been done? I can only suppose that the reason why this proviso has been inserted is that the Postmaster-General has been doing very wicked things.
Mr. Paling: I think it is intended to show that we do not intend to do wicked things.
Mr. Williams: I am glad that, for once, they are not going to exercise the right of entry. I am also glad that they are bowing the knee to the Opposition rather than to their Communist bosses behind them.
Mr. D. Marshall: This Clause describes the things which are to be done, and as, undoubtedly, there will be an increase in the number of these material matters, I trust that the Postmaster-General will bear in mind any measure which he may think necessary for protecting wild birds. He knows that in connection with other activities in his Department—telephones, and the rest of it—he already does this. If he finds it necessary, I hope he will bear this point in mind.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is expected to be comprehended by this Clause. What is the Clause expected to cover? It clearly does not cover experimental work. Are not other wireless transmitting stations now nationalised or under the control of the Post Office? It may be that this Clause has been taken from the 1904 Act, but is it still wanted after the passing of the Cable and Wireless Act? To whom is it meant to apply? Who are the people to whom Clause 3 (1, c) is intended to apply? That paragraph says:
"where sums are or may become due from the persons to whom a wireless telegraphy licence is issued after the issue or renewal thereof, requiring that person to keep and produce such accounts and records as may be specified in the regulations."
Is the right hon. Gentleman asking for this power because he does not think that Cable and Wireless, now it is nationalised, will keep proper records of accounts? He should tell us now, having regard to that Act, for what purpose this Clause is wanted, bearing in mind that in the next Clause there is provision for experimental licences.
Mr. Paling: Clause 3 (1, c) is a machinery provision which has no counterpart in the Act of 1904. It empowers the Postmaster-General to make regulations as to wireless telegraphy about certain matters. These are matters for which provisions could be made in licences, and the question may be asked why the Postmaster-General should have two provision-making powers. The answer is simple. Many licences such as broadcast receiving licences and ships licences belong to classes and contain common provisions. In such cases, these provisions can conveniently be made by regulations, a course which will serve the desirable purpose of shortening the licences and making permanent much of their contents which are of special concern to the individual licensees.
On the other hand, licences are issued which are individual in the sense that they do not belong to a class. They naturally contain special provisions called for by particular circumstances. It would plainly be inappropriate to put the provisions of such licences into regulations. Examples of these licences are the B.B.C. licence, the licence of Trinity House in respect of lighthouses and lightships, the licences of former railway companies in respect of coast stations in connection with cross-channel ships.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Postmaster-General has thrown very little light on the subject on which I asked him certain questions. He talks about licences for railway companies, but those companies are now nationalised. Is a licence still required from the Post Office to operate property belonging to publicly-owned corporations? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a specific question. What is the relationship between the powers contained in this Clause and the provisions of the Cable and Wireless Act? Does the Postmaster-General, under this Clause, take power by regulations to control the operations of that company? Is he taking power to control the operations of these stations which were formerly in the ownership of the railway companies and which are now nationalised? He has given us a very long statement, but it was not at all clear to me. Would he give an answer to these two specific questions which I put to him?
Mr. C. Williams: The Postmaster-General referred to the licence of the railway companies. According to the way in which he delivered his statement just now, it looked to me as if those licences might be in abeyance and might not be used at all. Have they been taken over by the nationalised railways, and, if they have, are we sure that the Post Office has the same control over them as it had before? is he also certain that the list which he read out is complete? For instance, are there no licences used by any of the other nationalised services? Are there no licences issued to any of the British air lines, or anything of that sort?
The right hon. Gentleman has been very helpful to us, but his reply was not conclusive. He certainly did not tell us very much about what was happening to the past licences of the British railway companies. There may very well be other licences to which the right hon. Gentleman could have referred. May we be assured that the list is complete and, if it is not complete, what was left out? We should like to know exactly what has happened to the railway company licences, and also what is the number of those licences. Unless we know, we are not really able to judge what the Government are doing.
Mr. Cobb: Hon. Members opposite seem to be singularly ignorant about legislation which they passed in bygone years. They passed the 1904 Act, and this Bill is very largely lifted out of that Act. Surely they understand the legislation which they passed. The situation is that the B.B.C. was a private company and it had to have a licence. When it became a State-owned corporation it still had to have a licence. There are still privately owned stations on ships. They have to have a licence. If the ship is taken over by the Government it must still have a licence. It was so under the old Act and it is so under this Measure. Hon. Members opposite ought to study the legislation which they passed and the way in which it was operated. This legislation will be operated in exactly the same way.
Mr. H. Strauss: Part of the confusion on this Clause may have arisen because it is very easy to read this Clause imagining that the words "wireless telegraphy" mean what they would mean in
602
ordinary parlance. Clause 18, the interpretation Clause, largely justifies what the right hon. Gentleman has put in Clause 3, and I think that possibly some of the difficulty has arisen through taking the expression "wireless telegraphy" too literally and not realising the very wide definition that is given in Clause 18. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more attention to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) about the relationship between this Clause and other Acts of Parliament. It may be that he has taken power in this Clause, a great deal of which he no doubt needs, for the reasons which I have given. There may, however, be some doubt as to how far he is interfering with previous legislation. I hope he will look into that point before we reach a subsequent stage.
Mr. Hobson: The suggestion concerning specialised treatment of nationalised industries is not true. It is a figment of the imagination of hon. Members opposite who are really introducing a political point into this matter. The position is that the corporations must have licences. We were also asked about Cable and Wireless. They also have to have a licence, and the same applies to the police and other people. There is no privileged treatment. A question was raised about the accounts. The reason for this provision is that ships transmit telegrams on behalf of passengers to people ashore, and quite rightly they are asked to keep accounts. I have endeavoured to elucidate the main points which got a little obscured by the introduction of the argument that the socialised industries were getting special treatment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: No one said that.
Mr. Hobson: It certainly was implied in the argument. That is my opinion.
Mr. D. Marshall: The Minister has said that we were introducing a political question, but he gave no answer to the points I made. I am not suggesting that he thinks this has something to do with a political question, but I should like an assurance that he will consider these points.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I waited before I rose to my feet because I thought

603
either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General would give us some answer, adequate or inadequate—we could have judged that when we heard the answer—to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). It is a question certainly worthy of consideration and we really should not let the Clause go until we have been told something on that point. I do not intend to take up time dealing with the suggestion which the Assistant Postmaster-General made in his speech, except to say that he was quite wrong in his statement that any party political issue has been raised this afternoon. If he expresses his own opinion in matters of this sort, then the discussions in the course of this Committee may perhaps take a little longer than would otherwise be the case.
I asked a question to which I have had no answer up to the present. It is a pertinent question, when we are considering a Bill dealing with wireless telegraphy, as to the relationship between this Bill and other legislation passed by this House—the Cable and Wireless Act. I wanted an assurance that the two have been considered together. That assurance I did not receive, but I will not pursue the matter any further in case any sinister meaning should be read into anything I say, by the Assistant Postmaster-General.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Hobson: I categorically said that Cable and Wireless have to have a licence, when I attempted to answer the point that special treatment was being given to socialised industries.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: No one has put that point.
Mr. C. Williams: We cannot let this Clause go without some special comment on the charming speech we heard from below the Gangway from the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). We heard the hon. Gentleman say that we ought to know all about our legislation. I am not quite sure how far it goes back, but I must say, on behalf of one or two hon. Members on this side, that we were not born in 1904. The hon. Member for Elland undoubtedly would know all about everything his party has done, but then, of course, he is a superman.
Mr. Cobb: I thought the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) had been talking since 1905.
Hon. Members: And still is.
Mr. C. Williams: That may well be, and possibly that is why I see so many of the hon. Members opposite come to my constituency to learn how to fight elections. I do not want to get into that sort of controversy. I am singularly dissatisfied with the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General about the nationalised railways. He did not touch the point raised from this side of the Committee and I suppose we shall have to say that the Government are legislating for things when neither the Postmaster-General, nor his Assistant, has the haziest recollection or idea of what they are doing.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Experimental Licences.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: In reading through this Clause I was struck by Subsection (1), which states that:
"… the Postmaster-General shall not refuse to grant or renew the licence and shall not revoke the licence when granted. …"
In Subsection (2) of the same Clause, however, the Postmaster-General appears to adopt powers which completely nullify the provisions of Subsection 1. Subsection (2) says that he may alter the terms, provisions or limitations which he attaches to any licence.
If he grants a licence under Subsection (1) and, at the same time, decides to attach a provision that there shall be no operation between midnight and midnight, or that no electrical apparatus shall be used with it, such a provision could be made under Subsection (2). I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee exactly what he has in mind, and what his Department has in mind, in the way of the conditions introduced in Subsection (2).
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I see the terms set out in this Clause

605
under which the Postmaster-General will grant a licence for the conduct of
"experiments in wireless telegraphy for the purpose of scientific research."
I am sure everybody will agree that that is a fairly wide term. I imagined that we should be invited to narrow it down into "for purposes of scientific research in connection with wireless telegraphy." I cannot imagine that the Postmaster-General would wish to widen the scope to such an extent that a licence would be granted for the purpose of carrying out experiments for scientific research in an entirely different field. Perhaps he will make that point clear and will consider re-drafting this particular Subsection in that respect.
In Subsection (3) we find that:
"Nothing in Subsection (1) of this section shall prevent the Postmaster-General from refusing to grant or renew, or from revoking, any licence if the applicant has been convicted of any offence under this Part of this Act … or has contravened any of the terms, provisions or limitations of that or any other wireless telegraphy licence granted to him."
That is far too limited in its scope. The Postmaster-General can remove the licence only if the applicant has been convicted of any offence under this part of the Act, which really means very little and is far too narrow. He may have an applicant for a licence who is an expert smuggler, a black marketeer, a burglar, a picture thief or anything else. Such a man may have been convicted of all sorts of things, but under this Subsection the Postmaster-General has no right to do anything about the removal of his licence because the man has not been convicted under this Act.
The position becomes rather absurd. If there are reasons to suppose that smugglers—to take one example—are developing the use of wireless telegraphy in carrying out their operations, and are obtaining a licence in order to carry out research in some particular field intending subsequently to make use of that research in order to perform their operations, then this Subsection leaves them untouched. It is not only these people, but also their friends. They may have friends who have been themselves involved in exactly this sort of law-breaking which, so far as I can see, the Postmaster-General will be quite unable to stop under Subsection (3). I hope the right
606
hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the position and will consider re-drafting these two Subsections.
Mr. Turton: I have no desire to see more licences revoked than is necessary, but in view of later discussions which we shall have on other Clauses, will the Postmaster-General make quite clear his attitude about the radio amateur? One of the most frequent causes of interference in television is the radio amateur. I think I am right in saying that he is far more the cause of interference than the domestic articles against which the Postmaster-General shows such venomous spite later on. It is the radio amateur, far more than these articles, who is causing bad reception in television.
As this Clause is drafted, I gather that the Postmaster-General will not alter any licence unless it can be proved that the bolder of the licence is deliberately interfering with wireless telegraphy. Thus, although the housewife will be chased under the later part of the Measure, the radio amateur will be entirely acquitted. I want that position to be made quite clear and if I am wrong, I hope the Postmaster-General will correct me. I think it is right that the Committee should know whether the Postmaster-General has the power to deal with faulty reception of television caused by radio amateurs, and if he has that power, why he is not exercising it today.
Mr. Pritt: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), I should have thought that there was quite sufficient protection against notorious smugglers or anybody of that kind, because the Postmaster-General does not have to issue a licence unless he is satisfied that the only purpose for which it is required is the innocent one of conducting experiments in wireless telegraphy. In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about the smuggler, he might be dissatisfied about that. Subsection (3) says:
"Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall prevent the Postmaster-General from refusing to grant or renew, or from revoking, any licence"—
I do not want to widen offences; I think it is right that they should be limited—
"if the applicant has been convicted of any offence …"

607
If the applicant asks for the grant of a licence, he can be told, "No, you have been convicted," or if he asks for renewal he can be told, "No you have been convicted." But if he has not been convicted, and is subsequently convicted, the Postmaster-General can say, "I shall revoke your licence, because you have now been convicted." I believe that the wording "if the applicant has been convicted," is a little doubtful, and that if there is to be an Amendment to this Clause it might well be worth while considering whether the words "has been or is" should be used.
Mr. H. Strauss: I think there may be the gap to which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has just alluded, but I wonder if there is not a further defect, such as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). I am not sure that the point to which the hon. and learned Member drew attention is really a complete answer. Like the hon. and learned Member, I wondered whether the words in Subsection (1) would be sufficient to meet the point, but I am not sure that they are, for this reason: suppose the Postmaster-General is satisfied on grounds that he afterwards finds to be wrong; in that event it seems that there would be the kind of gap which was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, so that the words in Subsection (1) mentioned by the hon. and learned Member would not be the complete answer.
Mr. Hobson: I can give an assurance that we will look into the legal points which have been raised about this Subsection, but I would remind the Committee that we are taking no powers in this Clause that were not in the 1904 Act. We have laid down certain conditions for those who experiment with wireless telegraphy, for instance, with regard to wavelengths and the articles to be used. There is no attempt to circumvent or put a brake upon those who want to develop wireless telegraphy. We want to give every assistance we can, but we must have certain safeguards. I agree with some of the remarks that have been made about amateurs, but we do not give such people a licence merely because they claim to be wireless
608
experts. Certain conditions are laid down, particularly with regard to the hours during which they may use their transmitting and receiving sets.
Mr. C. Williams: I am surprised at the extremely casual and discourteous way in which the Assistant Postmaster-General has treated the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who is sitting on the wrong side of the Committee. The Assistant Postmaster-General says, quite casually, that the point which the hon. and learned Member raised will be looked into. What is the good of making laws if they are not looked into properly and seriously? It was very discourteous of the hon. Member to be as casual as he was to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, whose deep knowledge, in many ways, has the respect of this House. We were delighted to hear the hon. and learned Member pick a small hole in this Bill, knowing that if he wished he could rake the Bill from beginning to end with that sort of thing. We only wish he would do so.
I see that we now have another learned lawyer in the Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has just taken up duty on the Front Bench, where he ought to be, according to the old practice of this House, before doing duty anywhere else. It has been pointed out that Subsection (3) is not clear, and that it ought to he subject to a further legal inquiry. We have not been promised that the defect would be put right, and I hope it will be put right. I do not wish to rub it into the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I must remark, once again, on the unfortunate way in which he treated the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(Prohibition of certain misleading messages, interception of private messages, etc.)
Mr. John Lewis: I beg to move, in page 5, line 47, at the end, to add:
"but it shall not be an offence under this Act for any person holding an ordinary broadcast receiving licence to listen to any station coming within the wave bands in which are included

609
any of the authorised broadcasting stations and licensed amateur stations."
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that anyone in possession of an ordinary broadcast receiving licence shall not commit an offence under this Bill by tuning into a station which is not regarded by the Post Office as being an authorised broadcasting station. The Clause says:
"Any person who—
(b) otherwise than under the authority of the Postmaster General or in the course of his duty as a servant of the Crown, either —

(i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) which neither the person using the apparatus nor any person on whose behalf he is acting is authorised by the Postmaster General to receive; or

(ii)except in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of any report thereof, discloses any information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any such message, being information which would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person,

shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
This places the ordinary licensee in a very difficult position. Let us assume that a person has a broadcast receiving set, on which there are the three usual wavebands. Running through these wavebands he happens to stop at an unauthorised broadcasting station, for example, a trawler transmission. Possibly the captain of the trawler is talking to another captain, and perhaps they are abusing one another's ancestry. Immediately, the licensee realises he is receiving an unauthorised broadcasting station it is his duty to stop, because he is committing an offence. But when he stops it is too late, because he has already committed an offence by picking up the unauthorised station.
It has been the habit for many years, in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft districts, for people there to tune their sets to 190 metres in order to pick up transmissions from these trawlers. That has been to some extent abused. Skippers very often have sent messages home to their wives to advise them of the time to expect them back for dinner. It is quite obvious, in so far as the licence issued by the Post Office to a trawler is concerned, that that particular purpose
610
would not be one of the conditions embodied in the licence.
5.30 p.m.
Nevertheless, last year a rather enterprising radio manufacturer decided to mark into a waveband the words "Trawler Wave Band," so that it could be seen on the dial of the set. A retail distributor in that district advertised the set as being capable of picking up messages from trawlers. The result was that the Telecommunications Department of the General Post Office communicated with the retailer in the following terms:
"The Postmaster-General is hound by international agreement to prohibit and take all necessary steps to repress unauthorised interception of radio communications not intended for reception by the public, and in pursuance of this duty he is prepared to licence the use of broadcast receiving sets only on condition that the reception is specifically limited to messages sent for general reception from authorised broadcasting stations and amateur stations. The reception"—
I emphasise the word "reception"—
"of communications from ships' wireless stations by members of the public is, therefore, unauthorised, and the Postmaster-General views with distinct disapproval the incitement to improper interception on the part of the public which was a prominent feature of the display."
As a result of that, on 11th June last year I put a Question down to the Postmaster-General, which he answered as follows:
"The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, provides that every licence for the working of apparatus for wireless telegraphy granted by the Postmaster-General shall contain the terms, conditions, and restrictions on and subject to which the licence is granted. Broadcast receiving licences authorise the reception only of broadcasts from authorised broadcasting stations and messages from any authorised amateur station, and members of the public holding such licences who improperly intercept communications which they are not entitled under the terms of their licence to receive are liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 116.]
I think it is quite clear from that answer—and I take my authority from the Postmaster-General—that it is an offence both under the 1904 Act and carried
forward into the present Bill, to intercept communications from stations which are not regarded by the Postmaster-General
as authorised broadcasting stations, even though the offence may have been committed quite innocently by people using ordinary broadcasting receiving sets. It was interesting, I think, at that time to

611
ascertain precisely what the Postmaster-General had in his mind as to the definition of an authorised broadcasting station. In reply to a communication I addressed to him on 16th June last year, he told me there were some 3,500 authorised broadcasting stations throughout the world, and that an official list of them was published by the Bureau of International Telecommunications Union at Berne. He said:
"In this country the authorised broadcasting stations are those operated by the B.B.C. In other countries the authorised broadcasting stations (other than those operated by the television services) are the wireless stations licensed or authorised by the Government of the country to radiate emissions of speech or music intended to be received by the general public."
My right hon. Friend informed me further in that letter that the holder of an ordinary broadcasting receiving licence is entitled to listen to any one of those 3,500 broadcasting stations, all of which operate at frequencies in bands internationally allocated and reserved for broadcasting services, and is also entitled to listen to messages sent out by licensed amateur stations. I would point out in this connection that messages from some unauthorised transmitting stations come within those frequencies in precisely those bands internationally allocated and reserved for broadcasting services. Finally, my right hon. Friend, in what I think was the most significant part of his communication, said:
"I am under an international obligation, however, to do all in my power to ensure the secrecy of radio telegrams and other radio communications exchanged between ships or between ships and coastal wireless stations. Apart from this obligation, I am sure you will agree that it is in the general interest that all practical steps should be taken to prevent interception by the general public of private radio communications not intended for them."
I think I have said enough to the Committee to make it abundantly clear that in the view of the Postmaster-General it is without doubt an offence to pick up or listen to messages available for general reception from stations other than authorised broadcasting stations or amateur stations. I remember that during the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to use this argument in my speech. The Assistant Postmaster-General, in his otherwise very able winding-up speech, dealt with
612
the point I had raised in the following terms:
"Then the question of trawlers was raised, and it was said that it is an offence to listen-in to trawlers. That is just not true, as the hon. Member will discover if he cares to read the Act. Trawlers are permitted to use wireless on a given frequency, and obviously that frequency is not one which is allocated for ordinary broadcasting, but if perchance the regulation is broken on a trawler and the hon. Member hears on his radio set the spokesman on the trawler, that does not constitute an offence in any shape or form within the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1948: Vol. 457, c. 1638.]
I am not attempting in any way to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend. I am merely attempting through this Amendment to elicit information. It does seem remarkable, however, that whereas the Postmaster-General has made it quite clear that it would be an offence to receive a station within the normal wavebands that we find on an ordinary receiver, but which is not regarded by the Post Office as an authorised broadcasting station, the Assistant Postmaster-General, on the other hand, is of the opinion that it is not an offence under the Bill. It is with the object of clarifying the position that I move this Amendment. It is also with the object of protecting listeners, because there is no doubt at all that action was taken by the Post Office in the case to which I have referred, and that a communication was addressed by the Telecommunications Department of the Post Office to certain people in the Yarmouth area warning them that they would commit an offence under the Act if they incited the public to improper interception. In those circumstances I hope that the reply, either from my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend, will make the position clear, and I hope they will be in a position to accept my Amendment.
Mr. D. Marshall: I was very interested when this point was put during the Second Reading of the Bill, and I rise to support what has been said about this matter. I should like to add one point in order to make the whole thing perfectly clear. I likewise remember the Minister's winding-up, and his suggestion that this was really all nonsense. I want to add this point. I think it is an extremely good thing that the people of our country are extremely interested in the sea. I think it has been a habit in the country, particularly along

613
the seaboard, and especially on a peninsula such as that of Cornwall, for people from time to time, when tuning their radio sets, to pick up certain messages being broadcast from ships. They have taken an interest in that type of message. Unless the Postmaster-General tells us that such interference might cause some form of danger, I would state that there is a good deal to be said for the people who pick up these messages. This interest in what happens at sea is for the good of our security. Our need in this country is for people at a very early age to become sea-minded.
I have had a complaint from a constituent of mine who has written to me, and who is very worried about this point. He is a man of mature years, and he takes a great interest in listening-in on his radio, but he constantly has the fear that if suddenly, when tuning in, he hears something which he is not intended to hear and listens to it for a few moments, he will, under this Bill, be doing something against the law. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Postmaster-General, and I trust that he will come to the Box and clear up this matter. If he cannot, then the Bill must be amended.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I hope I shall be able to relieve the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), for whose county I have such great affection. I cannot help thinking that his speech, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), are based upon too strict an interpretation of the Clause and too rigid a view of the manner in which the Clause will be administered when it becomes a Section.
If those entrusted with these matters enforced the provisions of the Statute Law in every case and prosecuted—if that were the appropriate procedure—in every case where some infringement had apparently been committed, whether or not it was technical, regardless of circumstances and regardless of the merits, the whole of the administration of the law in this country would break down at once. The law is not administered in that way, and before a prosecution takes place for any offence under the existing Statute Law, or before any prosecution took place for an offence under this Clause when it becomes law, careful consideration would
614
obviously be given by those entrusted with the administration of these matters to the circumstances in which the alleged offence had come to be committed.
I am certainly ready to give the clearest assurance that this Clause will be administered with the normal discretion with which the police and the authorities responsible for the administration of the criminal side of our law enforce that branch of our law, and that no proceedings would be taken under this Clause—nor, in my opinion, could they succeed if they were taken—unless it were established to the satisfaction of the court that there was a clear element of deliberate intention to obtain unauthorised information.
In practice, I think that it would be almost impossible to establish a case under this Clause to the satisfaction of any court unless we were able to say that the person who had, with intent, obtained the information by listening on his wireless set had made some improper use of that information. If that in fact happened, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Bolton would agree that there might well be circumstances in which a prosecution would be justified. The position of the Postmaster-General in this matter is that in this regard he is under an international obligation to make statute provisions of a fairly rigid nature. He must have the powers, but he will enforce them only when it is reasonable to enforce them. He is under treaty obligation to take the powers.
The Amendment is so vague that, so far as I can see, it would allow the reception by anyone of any message on any frequency. There seems to be no limit to the width of the wavebands covered by the Amendment, and the result would be that no secrecy in wireless telegraphy could be preserved at all if the Amendment were accepted, and the Postmaster-General would be in a position in which he could not fulfil the undertaking which the Government have given to implement the international communications regulations in regard to the preservation of the secrecy of wireless telegraphy. For these reasons, the Government are not able to accept the Amendment, but to relieve any possible doubt and anxiety on the matter, I give the assurance that there will be no prosecution, and, as I think, there can

615
be no prosecution, unless there exists a deliberate element of intent to procure information which the listener is not authorised to obtain.
5.45 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Having heard what the Attorney-General has just stated and being one of those who put their names to this Amendment, I must confess at the outset, that his remarks have gone a long way to allay the anxieties that were felt not merely by those of us who put our names to the Amendment, but by a number of people outside. It is now clear that it is not intended strictly to enforce this particular Clause, and that there has to be some deliberate element of misuse of the information obtained before any prosecution will lie. None the less, I must say that one of the reasons I was prompted to put my name to the Amendment was the ambiguity of the reply made on this point by the Assistant Postmaster-General when this matter was brought up on Second Reading. He is recorded as having said:
"Trawlers are permitted to use wireless on a given frequency, and obviously that frequency is not one which is allocated for ordinary broadcasting, but"—
and these are the words to which I should like to draw particular attention—
"if perchance the regulation is broken on a trawler and the hon. Member hears on his radio set the spokesmen on the trawler, that does not constitute an offence in any shape or form within the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1638.]
That limits the guiltlessness of the recipient only if the regulation is broken on the trawler—that is to say, if the trawler by some mischance is not operating on its proper wavelength, but where it is operating on its proper wavelength and the message is received by a listener, then I assume that his remarks do not apply.
Although my constituency is nowhere near the sea, and I personally have no interest in trawlers within the meaning of the phrase as used in this House, I have received a letter from a constituent who made a particular point of this matter and drew my attention to the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General was careful to say that no offence would be committed by the listener if the trawler was off its proper wavelength, but he omitted to say that there would be no offence if the listener tuned in to
616
the frequency allotted to the trawlers. However, in view of the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I must say that he has gone a long way to allay the anxieties that were undoubtedly felt.
Mr. J. Lewis: While appreciating the difficulty of my right hon. and learned Friend who has only recently come into the Chamber to deal with these matters and therefore, as one can understand, has not had a full opportunity of studying all the Amendments on the Order Paper, it appears to me that what he has told the Committee is briefly this. He said that we were perfectly right. This is an offence under the Bill, but it does not matter; we have to put it in because we are under some statutory international obligation to ensure that people do not do this sort of thing. We shall not prosecute them even if it is an offence under the Bill. Then he went on to give some reasons why, in his view, it was not possible to accept the Amendment. One of the reasons he gave was that the Amendment was vague, and that there was no limit to
the width of the wave bands. If he reads the Amendment, he will see that it says:
"… to listen to any station coming within the wavebands in which are included any of the authorised broadcasting stations and licensed amateur stations."
These, quite clearly, are the stations which the Postmaster-General in his licence authorises people to receive, and these would be covered by an ordinary radio receiving set. It is limited to that, because it limits the wavelength, and in those circumstances I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the reason he put forward for rejecting the Amendment—on the grounds that it was vague, and that there was no limit to the width of the wavebands—is not a very good one. However, I accept his assurance that in this particular matter the Postmaster-General is in some special difficulty because of the international question, and because he has certain obligations under international agreements, and in those circumstances I feel that it would be unwise of me to press the Amendment.
Mr. D. Marshall: I do not wish to detain the Committee because I think the Attorney-General has been very fair on

617
this matter, and has made it very much clearer than it was before. We know that there is a certain amount of difficulty because of international complications; and he also made reference to security, and so on, about which it is necessary to have provisions in the Bill. However, there is one point which I should have liked him to stress—perhaps he thought it was not necessary so to do—and that is in regard to people who may from time to time have been worried by what they thought this Clause really meant. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say that, in general, there is no question of prosecution, and also that such a course is not endangering life at sea, if by chance people do pick up these messages on their radio and listen to these different matters. I think people may be disturbed from that angle. Although I am not a technical man, I believe that such action is of no danger.
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated assent.
Mr. Marshall: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees. That is quite sufficient for my purpose.
Mr. Langford-Holt: There is one aspect of this Amendment on which I wish to be reassured. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) said that the question of the authorised wavelength was controlled at Berne. I would remind the House that about a year ago we had a debate on the B.B.C. and commercial radio, during which the Government expressed themselves very strongly in saying they would discourage, by all means at their disposal, persons in this country listening to commercial radio from Radio Luxembourg. It appears to me possible for the Postmaster-General to utilise the Bill in order to prevent people from listening to Radio Luxembourg, should the Government be so minded, unless the authority is and always will he the authority in Berne and not His Majesty's Government. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear that up?
Mr. Grimston: Could we have that point cleared up by the Attorney-General?
Mr. Hobson: The answer is that frequencies for broadcasting are allocated internationally. Quite frankly, I could not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-
618
Holt), because he presupposed that a wavelength on which the person would be listening would be identical with one which had been allocated for broadcasting. If that were so, then obviously, in the light of what the Attorney-General says, it would not be an offence.
Mr. Langford-Holt: The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. Let me give a specific example. The wavelength on which Radio Luxembourg now operates is an authorised wavelength; the Government have expressed it as their opinion that it is undesirable for people in this country to listen to Radio Luxembourg. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that this Bill will not be used in order to enforce that opinion which the Government hold, rightly or wrongly?—I think wrongly.
The Attorney-General: I do not know anything about this prohibition by the Government. I listen to Radio Luxembourg regularly, and I intend to go on doing so. I find nothing in this Bill which will endanger my pleasures in that regard.
Mr. Langford-Holt: It was the Lord President of the Council who expressed it as the opinion of the Government that so to do was undesirable.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Territorial extent of preceding provisions.)
Mr. Hollis: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out "one hundred," and to insert, "ten."
In at any rate my preliminary moving of this Amendment, I need not detain the Committee for more than a few sentences, because I move the Amendment in the first instance only as a matter of principle in order to obtain the Government's explanation. The situation is simply that up till now foreign ships have been subject to a penalty of £10, which has now been raised to £100. There may be a good reason for that, or there may be a bad reason. I just do not know. My hon. Friend and I have put down this Amendment as a matter of principle, because in the Second Reading Debate the Postmaster-General passed over the first part of the Bill as substantially non-controversial, and did not mention this very drastic change of penalty.

619
It is very improper that the Committee should allow to pass such a change, drastically upgrading a penalty, without some adequate explanation being given—indeed, without any explanation being given. If an adequate explanation is given, my hon. Friend and I certainly will not press this Amendment to a Division. But there are far too many instances in these days when the Government think it sufficient to establish that there is a case for them to do something, and, having established that, to think it entitles them to impose the most drastic penalty without giving any explanation why they are doing so. I have no special interest in foreign ships, and they may deserve to have their penalties multiplied by 10. However, I do move this Amendment in order to extract from the Government an explanation why this has been done.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: The figure "one hundred" has been put in to bring the amount up to that which a Britisher can be fined. The foreigner was in an exceedingly advantageous position in that regard. Indeed, he still is, because our own seamen can be not only fined £100 but also imprisoned. That does not apply to a foreigner; it stops at the fine of £100. Therefore, although the amount may have been raised from £10 to £100, the foreigner is still at a great advantage.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the Attorney-General is here, perhaps he would give me some indication of how the criminal liability imposed by the preceding Clauses will be enforced in relation to an offence committed by an aircraft,
"not for the time being in or over the United Kingdom or the said territorial waters."
Secondly, as to the enforcement of an offence in relation to apparatus which may not be easily traceable back to the United Kingdom, it does seem a little unnecessary to pass provisions creating criminal offences by people outside the normal jurisdiction if, indeed, there is no possible measure by which the law contained in this Bill can be applied. I should be glad of an indication how it is intended to exercise the jurisdiction of the British courts in relation to an offence committed by apparatus outside
620
the territorial waters—maybe in the air—which may perhaps be traced back to this country, and also an offence committed, for instance, by someone in an aircraft registered in Great Britain, when that aircraft is flying over the desert in the Middle East.
The Attorney-General: I apprehend that the short answer is that the Clause would be enforced, as other breaches of the criminal law are enforced, against such persons as are within the jurisdiction of the courts in this country.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7 —(Powers of Postmaster- General as to wireless personnel.)
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert:
"Regulations shall provide that any person whose authority granted under the last preceding subsection is revoked by the Postmaster-General may require the Postmaster-General to give reasons in writing and may appeal to the tribunal established by section nine of this Act and the tribunal on any such appeal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the appeal is made and the decision of the tribunal shall be final. Regulations may also provide for suspending the person to whom the authority refers from duty until the decision of the tribunal is known."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the two consequential Amendments, in page 8, lines 3 and 8, to leave out "Part of this." Under this Clause the Postmaster-General takes power to hold examinations and to issue certificates of competence to people who are to be employed in wireless stations. There is little doubt that people who obtain these jobs will want to have a certificate of competence, and that such a certificate will be of great importance to a person who takes up this career. The certificate will be a very important thing, and quite rightly so, but I see that the Postmaster-General takes power at any time to revoke these certificates of competence. I think that he has to have the power of revocation, but it seems very unfair to the individual that this power should be completely arbitrary without any right of appeal. The Postmaster-General will have the power virtually to take away a person's livelihood.

621
I am sure that there would be no intention of using this power in any wrong spirit, but mistakes may be made, and I think it is wrong that the power should reside in the hands of the Postmaster-General without any possibility of appeal. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment, which provides that a person whose certificate of competence is revoked has the right of appeal to the appeal tribunal set up under Part II of the Bill.
It will be observed that we give the power to suspend while an appeal is being heard, to cover the case where there ought not to be an appeal or where the defence of the realm is involved. It will be generally agreed that this is a matter of common justice, and I very much hope that the Postmaster-General will accept this Amendment, or if it is not acceptable, will give some indication that he has in mind proposing some similar Amendment. The two subsequent Amendments are in order to bring the functions of the appeal tribunal within Part I of the Bill, as at present they are confined to Part II.
Mr. Cobb: I think the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is getting a little too apprehensive. The Attorney-General has just told us that he listens to Radio Luxembourg, and I should like to tell the Committee that I have held a certificate of competence since 1917, which has never been cancelled by any Government. I know many hundreds of people who have held certificates of competence since 1917, and not one has had his certificate arbitrarily cancelled. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had any representations on this subject from the association which represents wireless operators at sea, or from any other body, because I do not know of any representations on this point.
Mr. Hollis: Surely what the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) has said strengthens the case for the Amendment. If it is true that no certificate has been cancelled, then there is no point in having this provision in the Bill. If it is extremely rare, then it ought not to create any inconvenience by allowing the machinery of appeal. If it is extremely common, then the fact that there is no appeal might be very deleterious for some of the persons concerned.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I agree that where a person has his certificate of competence revoked, it would probably make all the difference to his livelihood, but I doubt whether the tribunal set up under this Bill will be the right tribunal to consider an appeal. This is a tribunal set up to deal with highly technical questions. I have some sympathy, however, with the purpose of the Amendment, but I am sure that the wording will not do what the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) wants. I promise to look at this between now and Report stage and give sympathetic consideration to the object the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards meeting the point; but I should like to ask him to go a little further. I am not clear what he means by "sympathetic consideration." Does he mean that he will try to devise some machinery whereby, in the event of revocation, there will be power for the person concerned to appeal to an independent tribunal of some kind? If the right hon. Gentleman means that, then I think my hon. Friends will be satisfied. While this power has not been exercised in an arbitrary fashion by previous Postmaster-Generals, the fact remains that it is possible for it to be exercised in a very arbitrary fashion in the future, and as we are tidying this up we should put in some form of protection against that happening.
Mr. Paling: I have it in mind tidying it up in that way.
Mr. Grimston: In view of the way in which the Postmaster-General has met our point—and I am obliged to him for his undertaking—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, at the end, to add:
"Provided that no charge exceeding the sum of twenty shillings shall be made under this subsection."
This is somewhat similar to the Amendment previously under discussion because it is the same sum of 20s. which we are seeking to provide here as a ceiling which the Postmaster-General may make on applicants for a

623
certificate or authority issued by him under this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us by accepting this Amendment, because it looks as if under present circumstances, it is the intention of the Postmaster-General either now or in the future to demand more than 20s. for a certificate or authority which he gives. If that is not the intention of the Subsection, then the Postmaster-General can have no objection to accepting this very innocent Amendment which puts a ceiling on the amount he can charge.
Mr. Hobson: While appreciating the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should like to point out that the present scale of charges for this examination has not been altered for nearly 20 years. What we hope to do is to fix an amount which bears some relation to the cost of holding the examination. That is the principle on which the charge is based. Therefore, my right hon. Friend sees no reason for accepting the Amendment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the hon. Gentleman say that in no case will the charge exceed 20s.?
Mr. Hobson: No, Sir. What I did say was that the charges which are made at present have not been altered for nearly 20 years and that the charges we propose to make must bear some relation to the cost of holding the examinations. The hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that the highest charge made for a first-class certificate is £3.
Mr. Erroll: Is it contemplated that the charges in future will go up, in view of what was said that they must approximate to the general cost of holding the examinations?
Mr. Hobson: Not necessarily.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Commencement of Part I.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Erroll: Could we have some information on this Clause about the coming into operation of the Bill? I
624
see it is left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General, but it would be of some value to us if he gave us some indication of what he has in mind. There are also different dates for different provisions, and it would be interesting to know into how many sub-divisions this Part of the Bill can be divided in regard to its coming into operation.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I do not know how many times it may be divided, but this gives us power to bring it into operation by a certain date. Different dates may be appointed for different provisions. What those particular dates will be I cannot say at the present moment.
Mr. C. Williams: This is rather serious. The right hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea when his Bill will come into force. He should have some knowledge of whether it is an urgent matter and whether it is likely to come into operation soon—within a month, two months, or six months, or if it will be postponed until after the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman, whom I respect very much, should be able to do a little better and give us something which will afford a rough idea when this Bill will be brought into operation. That will bring the whole matter closer to reality. "Some time" is not a Parliamentary answer.
Could we have an answer now? I should not like it to go out from this Committee that the right hon. Gentleman does not know his own Bill. We are entitled to an answer about this date, because the right hon. Gentleman must have some idea. If he cannot answer, he forces us into the position of believing that he is asking for legislation, and yet does not know when it will come into operation. In that case it cannot be of any great reality. I am not pressing this in any hostile way. I see the right hon. Gentleman has now been given some further information. Perhaps he will tell me how urgent this matter is, and whether he will put it into operation this year or in the early part of next year?
Mr. Paling: The only information I can give in regard to this part of the Bill is that the 1904 Act has been operated regularly under the Expiring Laws (Con-

625
tinuance) Act, and it is intended that that process shall finish in 1949. Thus, the date will have to be before that, but exactly when I do not know. It also depends to some extent on the fact that under parts of this Bill we have to make certain regulations before we can declare a date. It is difficult to say exactly when the Bill will come into operation.
Mr. Williams: Do I understand that there will have to be further regulations between now and the time when the Bill comes into operation? I should have thought it better to put into the Bill, the matters on which we desire to legislate rather than depend on regulations.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Advisory committee and appeal tribunal.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 11, to leave out from the beginning, to "to," in line 12.
I think it would be convenient to the Committee if I discussed this Amendment together with following three Amendments—those in lines 12, 15 and 17. I can best cover these Amendments, which raise a point of considerable importance, by first indicating what is in Subsection (2) of the Bill as it stands, and summarising the changes we desire to see in the Subsection. Subsection (2) deals with the Advisory Committee to be appointed under this Bill; and it says that:
"The advisory committee shall be appointed from a panel consisting of such number of persons as the Postmaster-General may direct. …"
The first point that strikes one is that it is rather odd that the Postmaster-General should seek to retain power to himself to limit the number of persons who are to be upon the panel. It might be that he might limit the number in such a way that, in fact, all those upon the panel would have to be appointed to the Advisory Committee.
The first of the group of Amendments seeks to leave out the words
"consisting of such number of persons as the Postmaster-General may direct."
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede that the omission of those words is an improvement upon the Bill as it
626
now stands. The Bill goes on to say that the panel is
"to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof."
and is to consist of
"persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution"—
and the Council is not brought in there—
"either possess expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act or represent person: whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof."
It may well be—and I would not challenge it for a moment—that the President and the Council of the Institution of Electrical Engineers are the right people to draw up a list of those possessing expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations. However, as the Bill now stands, the President of the Institution has the right of selecting those who are to
"represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof."
Why should it be left to the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers to nominate to this panel persons representative of those affected? Why should he seek, for instance, to select a representative of the Housewives' League who may be affected because of the use of electric irons? That seems wrong, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman cannot really desire it.
Perhaps I can cover these Amendments most clearly if I read the Subsection as it would be if they were accepted. The Subsection would then read:
"The advisory committee shall be appointed from a panel half to be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers with the approval of the Council thereof, being persons who, in the opinion of the President of the said Institution, possess expert knowledge of the matters falling to be dealt with by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act."
Half the Advisory Committee will consist of experts, those experts being picked in the same way as is proposed in the Bill. The other half would be picked, as suggested in the last Amendment, which says:
"The remainder of the advisory committee to be nominated by the Postmaster-General from lists submitted by organisations which represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the regulations falling to be made under this Part of this Act and in

627
particular organisations representing users of any vessels, aircraft, vehicles or apparatus to which this Act refers."
I can appreciate the desirability of having on the advisory committee, for instance, representatives of the motor industry. It may be necessary to have representatives of the Royal Automobile Club or the Automobile Association, as well as representatives of motor manufacturers. A wide variety of representation may be necessary. Under these Amendments half of the advisory committee would be experts and the other half would be persons selected by the Postmaster-General from lists submitted by organisations. We have not limited, or sought to limit, the number of organisations which could submit lists to the Postmaster-General for this purpose, it being for him to select the persons most suitable.
The other change which these Amendments make to Subsection (2) is that they prescribe the proportions of experts and non-experts on the advisory committee. At present, to comply with the Bill, the Committee could consist entirely of experts without any representation of the user interest. It would be right to say that the committee should consist half of experts and half of people who are not experts. That would be achieved by our Amendments.
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt at the same time with the Amendment in line 18, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that not less than one-fifth of the members of the advisory committee shall be women."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I agree. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about that. This Amendment seeks to provide that ladies should be represented to the extent of one-fifth of the total number of the committee. This is obviously a case where women who use electric irons, cleaners and other electrical implements in domestic life should be represented upon the committee which may have a great part to play in seeing to the extent to which housewives can lawfully use their electric irons.
Mr. Erroll: Before dealing with the general question of the recomposition of the Advisory Committee, it would be
628
only fair to point out that, as the Clause is now worded, the size of the Advisory Committee is not limited in any way. The only limitation is on the size of the panels which may be nominated by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. It is rather illogical to limit in the Bill the number of persons who may be put on panels and not to limit the size of the committee. In our Amendments we have eliminated the limitation on the size of the panel because, of course, it does not matter how large the panels are when the Postmaster-General has complete freedom to decide the total size of the Advisory Committee.
As a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, I welcome the inclusion of that body in work of this character. The members of the Institution, and the President in particular, are most gratified at the way in which the Government have co-operated with that body in securing their advice and assistance. They regard it as a compliment and as an honour to be invited to co-operate. I must say, however, that I am sure that they only expected to be called in to advise on the technical aspect of the Bill and its consequences. I have not had an opportunity to re-read the Charter of the Institution, but I am almost certain that it would preclude them from advising extensively on the persons to be appointed to give user and domestic views on these matters. I am sure that members of the Institution would be the first to agree that they were only able to appoint technical advisers to the panel. They would shrink from attempting to nominate to the panel representatives of non-technical users such as housewives, although they might be able to make useful suggestions in regard to other categories, such as industrialists and shipping people.
Therefore, it is extremely important, as a matter of principle, that the Government should accept our Amendment which widens the scope of the committee without in any way limiting its opportunities. It may be argued that to enlarge the committee in this way would be to make it too cumbersome. We shall have to choose between complete representation and large size, on the one hand, and the small committee which will reach decisions and conclusions quickly but which will not be sufficiently representative. I am sure that

629
the work of a committee of this sort is bound to result in the creation of a number of sub-committees. Obviously, one does not want to have representatives of the users of aircraft present when the suppression of household equipment is being considered. Such a committee should have a number of sub-committees. Therefore, the main committee can properly consist of a considerable number of people who normally will only work on separate sectional sub-committees. I hope that the size of the committee which we propose will not be used as an argument against our suggestion.
6.30 p.m.
We were disappointed to see so little reference to the users of electrical apparatus. The users or consumers receive all too little attention nowadays, particularly from the nationalised industries, and this omission—and one can only hope that it is unwitting—is to be deplored. That is why we stress, in the Amendment to line 17, the importance of bringing in organisations representing the users. In the case of motor cars, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club are well fitted to represent the users. Some aircraft and vehicle owners, and the owners of industrial X-ray apparatus, could well be representative of other users.
There may appear to be greater difficulty in adequately representing the interests of domestic users of household equipment, but there are a number of reputable associations, I am told, many of which would be glad to submit suitable lists. There is, for example, the Electrical Association for Women, the Rural Institution in Scotland and the Women's Institutes in England, as well as a number of others. There is no need to drag into this discussion the more controversial group known as the Housewives' League. There are plenty of other organisations which could serve the purpose as well, and I hope the Amendment will not be rejected on that account.
It is particularly important to see that the household is properly represented. A great deal of electrical apparatus liable to cause interference is domestic, and we are grateful indeed to the anonymous radio manufacturer who staged an exhibition for the benefit of those interested, and made available to us in London yesterday and today a demonstration of the effect on wireless sets of
630
apparatus which had not been suppressed, and the effect of the fitting of simple suppressors. I am sure that, had housewives been afforded an opportunity of seeing that exhibition, they could have made some useful and pungent suggestions on the location of suppressors, particularly in regard to electric irons and vacuum cleaners. I think that a non-technical woman who is also a very practical housewife could make a very useful contribution to this Advisory Committee, particularly in regard to the size and location of suppressors on domestic equipment. I hope, therefore, that the Postmaster-General will see his way to accept our Amendment in full, and agree to a proper representation of women on what can be a most important and valuable Advisory Committee.
Mr. Cobb: I should like to mention one small point. I see that the proposed Amendment makes reference to the "users of any vessels." My legal friends always tell me that, when an Act provides for an Appeal Tribunal and states that one person has to have legal experience, it always means a barrister. Whenever I see that there is to be a representation of the users of any vessels, I find that it generally means that it is somebody from the Royal Navy. If the Minister is going to accept this Amendment, and agree to a widening of this panel for representatives of these users, I suggest that he might, for a change, perhaps, choose them from retired shipmasters from the Merchant Navy, instead of from the Royal Navy.
Mr. C. Williams: I would like to say a word on the matter of shipping. I fully support my hon. Friend's remark that the women of this country who run their households should have some say on this committee, but I want to bring out the point concerning the interests of the fishermen in this matter. I am glad to see that I have the approval of the hon. Gentleman opposite—
Mr. Cobb: I was concerned only to make sure that, if anybody was to represent the users of vessels, they should be people who spent their time at sea, instead of in port.
Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I want, and, although it may not always be practicable, the advantage of the Royal Navy is that it spends more time at sea than any other Navy in the world.

631
The fishing fleets today are becoming more and more dependent on wireless, and this great new advancement can immensely add to their value and to the amount of fish which they can catch. It is a scientific development which is still comparatively in its infancy, and, for that reason I submit that there should be special representation on the Advisory Committee—that the Government should give the fullest consideration to the fishermen who are scattered round our coasts, in order that they may be represented in this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to make quite sure that the interests of fishermen will be properly looked after in this new development in the use of wireless in the fishing industry?
Mr. Hobson: The Amendment is certainly one with a very popular appeal, and with which, under circumstances other than those contained in this Bill, we should have a great deal of sympathy, but the duty of this Advisory Committee will be to advise the Postmaster-General on what apparatus is likely to cause interference. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said, it will have to be a very highly technical committee. The Opposition have already agreed that there must be at least half of its members appointed by the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which shows that they appreciate the technical considerations which the Advisory Committee will have to bear in mind.
When it comes to consulting other interests, however, I think that one hon. Member has answered his own case by pointing out that the committee would become too cumbersome. Mention has been made of the Housewives' League and the motor manufacturers, and one could carry that further to include the trade unions who are involved in making the apparatus. We feel that, because it is a technical committee, it is absolutely essential that it should be composed solely of experts from the panel appointed by the Postmaster-General.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: If that be so, why has the Minister included in the Bill the phrase—
"or represent persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the making thereof?"
Mr. Hobson: They can be electrical experts as well as users of the apparatus. Their interests may not be diametrically opposed. The point is that, when the regulations are made, as the result of consultations with the experts on this committee, these regulations will have to be presented to the House, and one can readily see that the House of Commons itself is representative of users' interests. There is this further point. We are not concerned about the design of the particular domestic apparatus, but about the emission of electrical magnetic energy, which is a problem for the experts. That does not mean that non-experts will have no say at all in whether the regulations are suitable or not. The danger of large cumbersome committees has already been pointed out, and we think that it would be far better to leave the provisions as they are in the Bill.
Mr. W. Shepherd: I am afraid that the answer given by the Assistant Postmaster-General is most disappointing. It seems to me that he has contradicted his own argument. First, he says that it is wrong to have users' interests represented, because it is a technical committee, and then he said that those interests will have representation through this House. If it is wrong that user interests should be represented in any way, surely there is no point in their being represented in this House, and if user interests have any bearing upon the problem at all, they should have an opportunity of making representations right at the start.
I am not an expert in anything. The world has suffered much at the hands of experts of all sorts. I want to see the ordinary man and woman have some say. It is very easy, for experts when given their head, to go absolutely mad, and to concentrate upon their very close and narrow viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. Surely, if the Postmaster-General is going to make regulations which admittedly affect the life of almost every person in the country, it is only right and proper that considerations of general public interest should weigh with him in coming to a decision, as much as considerations are purely technical interest. It is fundamental that, in an issue of this kind, where the whole

633
life of the community is going to be affected, the ordinary person should be represented.
Any argument about the Advisory Committee becoming too large is, of course, superfluous. It is perfectly possible to regulate the size of this committee. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be very ill-advised to pursue the idea of an all-technical committee, because everyone would be suspicious of it. If he brings into the fold those who have no specific trade or technical interest, and he has to put into operation things which are not very pleasing, I am sure he will find that they will be more readily accepted. Therefore, we hope that he will very carefully reconsider the Amendment which, I am sure, is in accordance with the wishes of the House and the people outside who will be affected by the regulations.
Mr. Grimston: I desire to add my remarks to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd). First, we must consider this Advisory Committee in relation to the powers which the Postmaster-General is certain, in the later stages of this Bill, to minimise. But let it be remembered that he is seeking enormous powers in interfering with the public, not only at large, but in their homes as well.
I would remind the Assistant Postmaster-General that he said that this committee was only to offer technical advice about instruments which would cause interference, but flowing from that
advice, the Postmaster-General is going to take power to prohibit the use, if necessary, of many domestic articles. I think that, in these circumstances, we must have wider advice than that given by a purely technical committee. There is not the slightest doubt about it. I do not wish to belittle the procedure of this House, but we all know that with the negative Prayer procedure, a Minister getting advice from a technical committee may be extremely impressed by what they say—almost overborne by them—and may come down to this House very late at night with a set of regulations which will, very likely, not get the attention they deserve.
Having regard to the powers which the Minister is proposing to take in interfering with people in their ordinary domestic pursuits, and so on, I consider it wrong to rely merely on the advice of a technical committee, because the better it is technically, probably the less regard it will have to other considerations which are equally important. Therefore, we really must press this matter strongly. Unless the Postmaster-General can tell us that he will take this provision back and think again, we shall have to take this matter to a Division, because it is one which we consider extremely important, in view of the later provisions of the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 99.

Division No. 8.]

AYES

[6.45 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

Dodds, N N

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Burden, T. W.

Donovan, T.

Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

Carmichael, James

Driberg, T. E. N.

Albu, A. H.

Castle, Mrs. B A

Dumpleton, C. W.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Champion, A J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Attewell, H. C.

Chater, D.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Austin, H. Lewis

Cobb, F. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Awbery, S. S.

Cocks, F. S

Ewart, R.

Ayles, W. H.

Collick, P.

Fernyhough, E

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Collindridge, F

Follick, M.

Bacon, Miss A

Collins, V. J.

Foot, M M.

Balfour, A

Colman, Miss G. M.

Forman, J. C.

Barton, C.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Battley, J. R.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Crossman, R. H S

Gibbins, J.

Blyton, W. R.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Gibson, C. W

Boardman, H.

Daines, P.

Gilzean, A

Bowdon, Fig. Offr. H. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

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

Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S W.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Deer, G.

Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Grey, C. F.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Delargy, H. J

Grierson, E.

Brown, George (Belper)

Dobbie, W.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

McLeavy, F

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

MacPherson, M. (Stirling)

Simmons, C. J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Gunter, R. J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Skinnard, F. W.

Guy, W. H.

Mann, Mrs. J

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Hale, Leslie

Marquand, H. A.

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

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Messer, F.

Steele, T.

Harden, J. R. E.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hardy, E. A.

Monslow, W.

Stross, Dr. B.

Haworth, J.

Moody, A. S.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Hobson, C. R.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sylvester, G. D.

Holman, P.

Moyle, A.

Symonds, A. L

Horabin, T. L

Murray, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hoy, J.

Nally, W.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Hubbard, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

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

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

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

Thomas, John R (Dover)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Oliver, G. H.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Orbach. M.

Thurtle, Ernest

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Tiffany, S.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Timmons, J

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

Palmer, A. M. F.

Titterington, M. F.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Janner, B.

Parkin, B. T.

Turner-Samuels, M

Johnston, Douglas

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Vernon, Maj W. F

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Pearson, A.

Viant, S. P

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Peart, T, F.

Walker, G. H

Keenan, W

Perrins, W.

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

Kenyon, C

Platts-Mills, J. F. F

Warbey, W N

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Popplewell, E.

Watkins, T E.

Kinley, J.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Weitzman, D.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D

Proctor, W. T.

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

Lavers, S

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Randall, H. E.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Ranger, J.

Wilkins, W A.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Rankin, J.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Levy, B. W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Rhodes. H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Richards, R.

Willis, E.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Longdon, F.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Lyne, A. W

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Woods, G. S.

McAdam, W

Royle, C

Wyatt, W.

McAllister, G.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Yates, V. F.

McEntee, V La T.

Segal, Dr. S.

Zilliacus, K.

Mack, J. D.

Sharp, Granville

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Shurmer, P.

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Silken, Rt. Hon. L

Mr. Snow.

NOES

Astor, Hon. M.

Drewe, C.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Beamish Maj. T. V H.

Erroll, F. J.

Maclean, F. H. R (Lancaster)

Birch, Nigel

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Bower, N.

Gammans, L. D.

Maitland, Comdr J W

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Marples, A. E.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Gridley, Sir A.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Grimston, R. V.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Mellor, Sir J

Butcher, H. W

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

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Byers, Frank

Head, Brig. A. H.

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

Channon, H.

Hollis, M. C.

Nicholson, G.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Hope, Lord J.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Howard, Hon. A.

Nutting, Anthony

Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Corbett, Lt.-Col. U.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

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

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lambert Hon. G.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Law, Rt Hon. R. K.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Linstead, H. N.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Digby, S. W.

Lloyd, Serwyn (Wirral)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Low A. R. W.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Donner, P. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Scott, Lord W.

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

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Drayson, G. B.

McFarlane, C. S.

Strass, Henry (English Universities)

Sutcliffe, H.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

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

Taylor, C, S. (Eastbourne)

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

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

White, J B. (Canterbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Commander Agnew and

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mr. Studholme.

Turton, R. H.

York, C.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "of legal experience," and to insert
"who is a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing."
I understand it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the proposed similar Amendments to lines 24 and 28.
These three Amendments all raise the same point and I can deal with it quite shortly. The Bill says that the Appeal Tribunal shall consist of "one person of legal experience." The Appeal Tribunal is a tribunal of great importance. It will have considerable power because it is to that tribunal that the ordinary consumer, who has a notice served upon her to stop using her electric iron in 28 days' time, can appeal. It is to that tribunal that the owner of some big industrial premises with electrical machinery upon them can also appeal for permission to continue to use his electrical plant.
The Bill takes what is, I think, rather an unusual form in merely saying, "one person of legal experience." The normal practice, surely, is to designate a person who is a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than so many years' standing. This form was used in the Pension Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, and also, I think, in the National Health Act, where the period was one of not less than 10 years' standing. I do not attach very much importance to the difference between 7 and 10 in this connection, but I do suggest that the Bill would be improved by the inclusion of a definition of this character which, I think I am right in saying, is the normal description in Acts of Parliament of "one person of legal experience."
The Attorney-General: Whilst not committing myself in any way, either favourably or unfavourably, to any view on the matter in the industrial field, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) of the importance of maintaining the principle of the "closed shop" in the legal profession and I welcome his adherence to this important principle of trade unionism.
638
It is certainly not the intention to appoint anybody to preside over this Appeal Tribunal who does not possess legal qualifications; but some of the persons who are pre-eminently fitted to occupy the post of president of the tribunal are not practising barristers or solicitors. I refer in particular to retired persons who have held judicial offices, such as, for example, Indian and Colonial judges and, possibly—I am not making any indication of policy about this—persons who at present hold judicial office. It is because we recognise the importance of this tribunal that we contemplate that it may be desirable to appoint such persons to it. I give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that nobody will be appointed who is not or has not been a barrister or solicitor in practice and that if the person appointed is, in fact, a practising barrister or solicitor, he will be one with some degree of experience.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Attorney-General has told us, will he consider putting into the Bill words embodying exactly what he has just said: that a person shall not be appointed as chairman of this tribunal unless he has, in fact, practised either as a barrister or a solicitor for 7 or, it may be, 10 years. I think that such a definition will cover the particular categories to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The insertion of the words, "practising or has practised" would cover men who had in the years gone by practised for seven years before being appointed to, for instance, the bench in India.
One does not really like to see the words "of legal experience" undefined in a Bill because they do not really mean anything. Such an expression would include, I imagine, a bar student who had been reading for many years without ever succeeding in passing any examination but who had been an enthusiastic attender at the back of the courts in hearing cases conducted. It might even be said that such a person although without legal experience, might possess legal skill. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, to tidy up this position by

639
saying that he will include the wording I have suggested. This is not a big matter but it would cover the categories he has mentioned and would be very useful as a precedent.
The Attorney-General: We will certainly look at this point. I do not think a bar student would be covered by the existing wording. He might be described as a person of "extra legal experience" but I do not think he would come within the meaning of the words contained in the Clause as it stands. I will, however, look into the point regarding years of experience.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0 p.m.
The Deputy-Chairman: The next four Amendments could be considered together: In page 8, line 40, leave out from "the," to "appoint," in line 41, and insert:
"circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should."
In line 42, leave out "Institution of Electrical Engineers," and insert "tribunal."
In line 43, at end, insert:
"of the Institution of Electrical Engineers."
In line 44, leave out "thereof."
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, to leave out from "the," to "appoint," in line 41, and to insert:
"circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should."
The point raised by these Amendments is who should decide whether or not special assessors are to be appointed in a particular case. As the Clause reads, the parties in a particular case, presumably the Postmaster-General and some other party, have to concur in suggesting that an assessor be appointed. That gives to either one or the other a veto, which seems undesirable. If our Amendments were accepted, the Clause would then read:
"Provided that if the circumstances of any particular case require in his opinion that he should appoint a special assessor or two special assessors, under this proviso, the President of the Tribunal shall, with the approval of the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and with the approval of the Council, appoint an assessor."
640
The effect of that would be that, where one or more special assessors are required in an appeal case, the decision would rest with the president of the tribunal. In practice it would mean that if either of the parties think a special assessor is needed he can make representations to the president of the tribunal who will decide in his judicial capacity whether or not that is necessary. We consider that a better procedure than that land down in the Bill, which provides that if either of the parties think a special assessor or two assessors are necessary, they have to agree. It would be open to the Postmaster-General to object to a special assessor wanted by a person opposing him, or vice versa. To my lay mind it seems much more in accordance with the principles of justice that the decision should rest with the president of the tribunal. That is the effect of the Amendments, which I hope will be looked upon favourably.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I thought possibly that was the idea in the minds of those putting forward the Amendments, but I am not sure that the Amendments would effect that object. I have prepared an Amendment which, I think, would secure what hon. Members desire. It is shorter and simpler than the one now proposed and would read as follows:
In page 8, line 40, leave out 'concur in requesting him' and insert:
"other than the Postmaster-General, request the President of the Institute of Electrical Engineers."
That would take away my veto. If this suggested Amendment is acceptable, should be glad to have it inserted.
Mr. Grimston: The suggestion certainly goes some way to meet our point. It deals with the veto of the Postmaster-General, but still leaves the decision of whether or not there should be special assessors appointed entirely in the hands of the person appealing. That is not a bad thing, I suppose, from his point of view and, if the Postmaster-General is prepared to put it forward then, without having had time to give it more than a moment's consideration, I would say it goes a good way towards meeting us. I am still not quite satisfied that the best way would not be for the president of the tribunal to make the decision.
Mr. Hollis: I am not quite sure how we stand in regard to this matter. Originally it was provided "if the parties concur." Then the Postmaster-General has to make concessions, if the parties "other than the Postmaster-General" concur. Is not the Postmaster-General always to be one of the parties in all these cases? Does that not mean that the decision rests with the other party alone? Would there be a case in which there were more than two parties?
Mr. Paling: That was the trouble, that there would be two parties, of whom the Postmaster-General was one and he could put on a veto. Because of that, I a m taking out the power of veto.
Mr. Hollis: I wish to be clear on what we are doing. Would not
"if the parties to any particular case other than the Postmaster-General concur"
be precisely the same as saying
"provided that the party being prosecuted by the Postmaster-General demanded"?
Mr. Paling: I should not like to say that at a moment's notice. We looked at this series of Amendments very closely and came to the conclusion that the Postmaster-General's veto was the trouble and that these Amendments had been put down in order to get rid of the veto. I have suggested an Amendment which will do that.
Mr. Hollis: The Postmaster-General may be making a concession, but we wish to be clear where we stand.
Mr. H. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the actual words?
Mr. Paling: In page 8, line 40, leave out "concur in requesting him," and insert:
"other than the Postmaster-General, request the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers."
Mr. Hollis: I do not see what is the meaning of the words "the parties" now, but it does not matter. Perhaps the Attorney-General could help us.
Mr. Turton: There is another point in our Amendment, but not in the suggested Amendment. We took the view that the special assessor should be appointed by the president of the tribunal and not by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, although he should be
642
nominated by the Council of the Institution. The Postmaster-General has not accepted that and has not explained his reasons for not accepting it. Normally in a tribunal the presiding judge appoints an assessor to sit with him, rather than an outside body, who really have no connection with the tribunal. We may be wrong, but we should have some reply from the Postmaster-General on that point.
Mr. Paling: In a case before the tribunal, when there is some doubt about assessors, it is probable that the case will be one which is highly technical and in which an assessor with highly technical qualifications and probably specialised qualifications will be required. That being so, we think the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers would probably be the best person to choose such assessors.
Mr. Grimston: May I put the position at which I think we have arrived, and then see if I am right? Any action here must arise from an appeal by somebody against a decision or the giving of a notice by the Postmaster-General. It seems to me that the Postmaster-General has to be one of the two parties. If somebody brings an appeal against the Postmaster-General and that person wants a special assessor, he can apply for a special assessor and a special assessor must be appointed. It will not rest with the president of the tribunal; it will be the person who is appealing against something which the Postmaster-General has done. Is that the position?
Mr. Paling: Yes.
Mr. Grimston: I speak subject to anything that my legal friends may say, but it seems to me that such a person is in a very good position. That being so, I am inclined to think that the Postmaster-General has gone even further than we have gone in our Amendment. However, I think perhaps it would be as well if we gave a little further consideration to this point between now and the Report stage, and perhaps the Postmaster-General could give an undertaking that this matter will be brought up again on the Report stage. He has had time to consider it fully, and we have not. At first sight, it seems that he has more than met us, but perhaps we could leave the position like that.
Mr. Paling: I think that is probably the best course.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "fees," to "and."
This Amendment raises a small point, and I move it in order to obtain an explanation. It will be noticed that Subsection (5) deals with the expenses of the Advisory Committee and the Tribunal, and
"in the case of the tribunal, such sums by way of fees or other remuneration to, and in respect of the expenses of …"
It would seem to us that "fees" and "expenses" are sufficient to enable anyone to know what the Postmaster-General has in mind in relation to remuneration other than remuneration under those two heads.
Mr. Paling: What we had in mind was the question whether "fees" or "salaries" might be better. However, we have no objection to this Amendment. We have had no experience of the Tribunal; we do not know how much work it will have. It is highly hypothetical, and we are prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Regulations as to radiation of electro-magnetic energy, etc.)
7.15 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, to leave out "regulations," and to insert "orders."
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has had to absent himself from the Chamber, and I am moving this Amendment for him. It raises quite an important point. The Bill provides for various things to be done by regulations, and that means that those regulations will come before the House, as the Postmaster-General said, under the negative procedure.
This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the last Amendment to this
644
Clause: In page 10, line 11, at end, add:
"(5) Orders made under this section shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure."
It is not a question of putting down "orders" as being a more interesting word than "regulations." The effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to bring the machinery of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, into effect. The reason for doing that is that the requirements which the Postmaster-General may want to lay down under the regulations may, in certain cases, be such as to weigh very heavily upon the manufacturers of certain apparatus. Suppose that he says, "In future this apparatus must not be used any more." Hon. Members will see that Subsection (2) provides for requirements as to the maximum intensity and so forth, and
"different requirements may be prescribed for different circumstances and in relation to different classes or descriptions of apparatus …"
The manufacturers of some particular kind of apparatus might feel aggrieved by the regulations. If so, I do not see that there is any provision by which their case can be met, because while regulations may be prayed against, they cannot be amended in this House, and that, in a technical matter, may lead to very considerable difficulty.
If we bring in the special procedure under the Act of 1945, and proceed by requiring orders, then, of course, the manufacturers who feel aggrieved by a proposed requirement will have the right of coming to this House by the process of Petition, and petitioning to the joint committees which are set up under the Act of 1945. It seems to me that if private interests—using the word in its largest sense—are being affected by something which the Minister does, in the way of prohibiting the use of a particular apparatus, for example, the manufacturers might say, "That is going too far; we should modify it to deal with the situation," and under the Act of 1945 they could have access to the special joint committees and the matter could be dealt with there.
I think this is the kind of case where that Act ought to be used. It is not often used. In fact, I am not even sure that it has been used at all, but Parliament in its wisdom opened that particular road

645
for dealing with difficult cases of this kind. I quite appreciate that the Postmaster-General is bringing a certain number of matters within the purview of the House by using regulations, which has not been the case in the past. I appreciate the change from the Parliamentary point of view, but it may not be sufficient in certain cases. Therefore, by bringing in the order procedure, I do not think the Postmaster-General would harm himself in the normal case, and it would give an opportunity to the manufacturers of apparatus where there may be a real sense of grievance or where great loss may be involved.
It was that sort of consideration which my hon. and learned Friend had in mind when he put down this Amendment, and I hope I have been able to make the point clear. I do not think there is any need to amplify it any further. The words in our last Amendment to this Clause, to which I have already referred—
"subject to special Parliamentary procedure"—
are, I think, the correct way of setting out the requirements. Of course, if they are not technically correct the right hon. Gentleman will tell me, but I think that is the correct way of bringing to life the Act of 1945 so as to deal with that problem.
The Attorney-General: If the intention of this Clause were to enable the Postmaster-General to make ad hoc regulations relating, for instance, to Mrs. Smith's flat iron, there would be a great deal to be said for the Amendment. But that, of course, is not the purpose of the Clause. Regulations which will be made under this Clause will be general in their application to all flat irons, or whatever types of apparatus may be covered by them, and the special Parliamentary procedure would be quite inappropriate to regulations of that kind. That procedure, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman well knows, applies, and is designed to apply, to cases for which previously the Private Bill procedure would have been used, where the interests of particular parties are particularly or specially affected by what it is proposed to do. It enables those parties, after a somewhat cumbrous and elaborate procedure—less elaborate and cumbrous than in the days of Private Bill pro-
646
cedure, but still somewhat elaborate and cumbrous—to have their case argued by counsel when the House is considering the content of the regulations. That really would be quite inappropriate, and most inconvenient one would have thought, to the parties as well as to the House if it were to be applied to general regulations of this kind.
These general regulations, applying to a whole class of apparatus of a particular kind will be subject to a number of safeguards which will protect all private users or manufacturers of apparatus within the Clause. First of all they are subject to the safeguards that before the regulation can be made at all the Postmaster-General is required to consult with the Advisory Committee. Some members of the committee represent the interests of those persons who are likely to be affected by the regulations, and may be trusted and expected to represent those interests. If there is any doubt about it they will, secondly, be subject to the jurisdiction of this House in which, on this side at any rate, there will certainly be a number of hon. Members who will represent the interests of all the persons concerned in those matters.
Thirdly, and this is a particular safeguard, any person affected by the regulation has the right to appeal to the technical tribunal before the regulations can be enforced against him or her, and the tribunal itself would have the power under one of the subsections of Clause 11—to order the regulations to be relaxed in relation to that particular individual. That provision in itself indicates that the regulations will be of general rather than particular scope, to which it would be quite inappropriate to apply the special Parliamentary procedure. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not wish to press the Amendment.
Mr. Turton: It does seem that the learned Attorney-General has not answered the case put up by my right hon. and gallant Friend. If we look at Clause 10, line 39, and following we see:
".. different requirements may be prescribed for different circumstances and in relation to different classes or descriptions of apparatus, different districts or places and different times of use."
In other words, we are, in effect, to have different regulations for different districts. That is just the sort of case we were

647
envisaging when we passed this special legislation. If I remember rightly, this legislation is already in operation in the Water Act. That is the same type of case, where we have varying conditions in different districts, which caused Parliament to make this special procedure. It does seem that those who are affected, whether housewife or manufacturer, will be greatly embarrassed by the fact that they cannot put their case unless by some chance they are represented upon the Advisory Committee. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and allow this special procedure which has been laid down to be used in this case.
The Attorney-General: It is not a question of their being represented on the tribunal at all. If the housewife is affected by the regulations she can come to the tribunal herself. She will probably find that a much more convenient, a much less expensive and inevitably a more expeditious procedure than coming to this House under the special Parliamentary procedure. Just think what the hon. and gallant Member is really suggesting—that if the housewife, the individual housewife, who is affected by a regulation which may be limited to a particular area or town, wishes to object she has to take advantage of the special procedure. It really is quite ludicrous. Her interests are far better safeguarded in a case like this by going to the tribunal and saying, "There are circumstances in my particular case why this regulation should not apply to my flat iron." It really is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut to suggest that that type of case should come to this House under the special Parliamentary procedure.
I do assure hon. Members opposite that they are fully safeguarded by the three matters to which I have referred; in particular as the individual housewife or individual user of apparatus, or individual manufacturer has a right to come to the tribunal and say, "This regulation may be all very well in a general sense, but it ought not to apply to me." The tribunal hears them, and with expedition comes to a sensible conclusion about the matter.
Captain Crookshank: It is always very difficult for the layman to answer the
648
learned Attorney-General and his legal explanations, but I think he is trying to ride us off by talking about the housewife—
The Attorney-General: The right hon. and gallant Member talked about the housewife.
Captain Crookshank: Of course hon. Members can talk about what they like within the rules of Order. But the case I have tried to put is not the case of the housewife at all, but the case where one manufacturer may find himself very damnified because of a proposed regulation affecting him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the idea is that there will be general regulations. The case I was thinking of was one where there might be some people who make flat irons, who considered they should be outside the regulation altogether, and who would find themselves possibly put entirely out of business by this decision of the Postmaster-General.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Yes, there is a tribunal. The tribunal will consider this matter." That may be so. But it is not the tribunal that brings the matter before this House. It is the Postmaster-General. And in the end it is against him that would lie the grievance which I have in mind, and which in certain circumstances might be a very considerable one. Of course no one would imagine a housewife employing counsel to come before the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That is a reductio ad absurdum, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it perfectly well.
7.30 p.m.
But there might very well be manufacturers of that sort of equipment who might find the edict very obviously affected them, and they have not, apart from the tribunal, access to this House. It is the right of the citizen who feels a grievance to come to this House and let this House consider it which I am trying to preserve, particularly as in 1945 this House put on the Statute Book legislation to make that possible. Obviously it would not be invoked unless there were very serious reasons. Certainly it is not a question only of a housewife. If there were such a case we ought to adhere to the rules of procedure which we laid

649
down only three years ago for meeting just such a case.
I hope, therefore, that the Attorney-General will look further into this matter. I am sure that he does not want any section of industry to labour under any sense of grievance in a matter of this kind. The Postmaster-General has special responsibility because it is he who has to bring regulations before this House, but this House is estopped from amendment of regulations and has no redress short of throwing out the regulations altogether. It is going to the other extreme. The Attorney-General has talked about the housewife as being an extreme case against the special procedure; so the other way of throwing out a regulation, because of a grievance of a section of the people, when the regulation might be desirable on other grounds, is also an extreme case in the other direction.
There is this "middle of the road" procedure. The Bill has been brought on at short notice and some of the Amendments can hardly have had full consideration by the Attorney-General owing to the shortness of time. We did not know that the Bill was coming on so soon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have had time to look at them fully. Perhaps there will be time to do so between now and the Report stage?
Mr. Hollis: I would remind the Committee of something which emerged during the Second Reading Debate, out of the able speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe). He pointed out that it was by no means certain which suppressors would be effective and what expense would be required to make a success of these things. The Postmaster-General was of the opinion that a very small expense would provide an effective suppressor, and he may be right or wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey division has had great experience and he did not believe that the suppressor in which the Minister put his trust would, in fact, suppress. That is a consideration which ought to weigh with the Attorney-General in meditating on this matter. We are not concerned so much with the grievance of an individual housewife but with the fact that this Measure has been brought forward on
650
the assumption that the technical answers to the problem are much more certain than in point of fact they are.
The Attorney-General: I certainly do not want to deal with the matter on the basis of a housewife. Far be it for me to ride off on the case of the housewife, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) seemed to think I wanted to do. Because of my great interest in housewives and my jealous determination to protect their interests in this matter, I gave that particular example, but only as an example.
The case that was put to me by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be equally and adequately protected, in my submission, by the Tribunal procedure. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite consider what is involved in the special Parliamentary procedure. We have not used it much yet. It is much better than the old Private Bill procedure which might have had to be resorted to, but it is expensive, cumbrous, and takes time. Here we have a regulation prescribing some requirement in regard to electric flat irons. I assume that they are the kind of apparatus that might be affected by regulations. Under the special Parliamentary procedure, before any order in regard to the matter could be laid before Parliament, notices would have to be published. There would then be a time limit within which objection might be lodged and considered.
After the order had been laid before the House, petitions would have to be lodged and there would be a further time limit to enable them to be lodged. When these were finally lodged and the time limit had expired the petitions would be referred to the Lords Chairman of Committees and to the Chairman of Ways and Means. Those petitions might pray against the order in regard to flat irons generally or in regard to flat irons of some particular colour or type. They might deal with some particular aspect of the order or with the whole order, and that matter would have to be considered by the Lords Chairman of Committees and Chairman of Ways and Means. They would have to decide whether to certify the petitions as disclosing a substantial ground of objection.
If they decided that the petitions were such as were proper to be received, there

651
would be another period of perhaps 14 days allowed, during which any Member of either House might move that the order should be annulled. The House would then determine whether the order should be proceeded with any further. If the House decided that it should and if such a Motion had been carried, the petitions would stand adjourned to a Joint Select Committee. Before that Committee there would be a hearing attended by counsel and probably taking a very long time. After that, the Committee's report, when it was arrived at, would be laid before the House and the House might consider it and make Amendments to it, and so on and so forth. That is the special Parliamentary procedure.
If we adhere to the procedure as laid down in the Clause as at present drafted, a particular manufacturer who thinks that a regulation in regard to flat irons will interfere with his type of flat iron, can go to the Tribunal. Nobody has a greater regard than I have for the common sense of this House and for its sense of justice, especially as this House is at present constituted. I also think that the Tribunal will be able to deal with these matters on a common sense basis and consistently with justice. These are to some extent technical matters with which a Tribunal of this kind will be specially qualified to deal.
The manufacturer who objects to the regulation will be able to go to the Tribunal and give special reasons, many of them I dare say technical, without much expense or delay, and he will do so to a Tribunal which will understand these matters and specialise in them, and will be able to give its decision immediately. By that procedure I venture to think—and I ask the House to agree—the manufacturer who objects to a regulation will have, I will not say better protection than he would have under the special Parliamentary procedure, but protection at once as good, much cheaper and much more expeditious.
Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given reasons of weight for the inappropriateness of the special procedure mentioned in the Amendment. In so far as he has justified the actual provisions of the Bill, it is partly by reason of a provision in a
652
subsequent Clause to which he alluded. Perhaps I shall be in Order in mentioning that subsequent Clause, just to that extent. What the Attorney-General had in mind was the right of the individual under Clause 11 (4, b), but a great deal may turn upon whether the relaxation of the requirements to which he referred can be made on a very wide variety of grounds or would be more limited. It seems to me possible to read the Subsection as implying that the requirements ought properly to be relaxed only if what the Postmaster-General has in view in the regulations would be achieved if they are relaxed, but it would not deal at all with the grievance of the individual citizen who might be very hard hit if there were not to be a relaxation. That point deserves to be borne in mind.
In the last argument the Attorney-General addressed to the House, he was dealing specifically with a manufacturer objecting—I largely agree with what he said—but what many of us have in mind is the position of owners of existing apparatus lawfully manufactured and complying with the law that applied before the making of any regulation. The regulation might cause an individual citizen to be prohibited from using a lawfully acquired apparatus, unless he alters it so as to comply. There may be very considerable hardship unless the widest possible provision for relaxation is made. I agree with the Attorney-General that that probably falls for consideration more under the next Clause, but I should like to point out to the Government that the comfort which the Attorney-General sought to give us very much depended on the actual effect of Clause 11 (4, b) and I should like him to see whether that protection is quite as wide as he suggested to the House in an earlier speech.
Mr. Mack: This seems to be an instance of hairsplitting among the lawyers.
Captain Crookshank: There are not many hairs, are there?
Mr. Mack: Last week the Postmaster-General, who is a very homely person, moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and said he wanted to take homely examples. So do I, and I have an example of a domestic situation which might occur. A British workman, Mr.

653
John Smith, comes home at night after a hard day's work. He cannot go to the public house because beer is dearer than he can afford. He does not smoke many cigarettes. He takes his coat off and sits in front of the wireless, toasting his feet in front of the electric fire. Suddenly his wireless emits a howling whine or wail, like a cat with his tail caught in the mangle, or hon. Gentlemen opposite when they hear the result of the next General Election. Smith is very disturbed and angry, and pandemonium breaks out. If he lives in a block of flats, probably the people above are banging on the floor to draw his attention to the fact that his set is making a noise and the people below are pushing broomsticks against the ceiling—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the question, which is to leave out "regulations" and to insert "orders."
Mr. Mack: All I can say, Mr. Butcher, is that there has apparently been a very wide discussion. What I have heard up to now Mr. Butcher, has not been strictly relevant to the remark you have made. The noise may turn out to be due to the fact that the lady next door is using a flat iron. Flat irons have been mentioned in this connection. My right hon. Friend says that if a flat iron is fitted with a thermostat, it must comply with certain requirements. He can then enforce the fitting of a device to an individual's electric iron which is confirmed as being the cause of interference, by prohibiting its use so long as it interferes. That raises many possibilities. I should like to know from the Attorney-General whether, under this Bill, we are to have action against the owner of the iron. Are we to say to the woman, "You cannot use it for a period of time," or what action shall we take?
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must really confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee, which is to leave out "regulations" and to insert "orders."
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I was rather impressed at first by the arguments of the Attorney-General, but on thinking them over, I came to the con-
654
clusion that the impression he left with me strengthened very greatly in my mind the desirability of having the Statutory Instruments procedure. There are two reasons for this. The first reason why I think it appropriate is that it is perfectly clear that the Post Office are speculating on the type of suppressor and the type of future activity necessary in order to prevent interference. Where that speculation is taking place and the Post Office are groping in the dark, it is desirable that whatever action they may think it necessary to pursue, should remain under Parliamentary control.
We are here dealing with wide groups of possible lines of interference, and until greater certainty and precision as to the methods of interference and suppression has been arrived at, it is desirable that the matter should remain under Parliamentary control. If the Amendment is not accepted by the Committee, it will mean, as the Attorney-General pointed out, that any question of appeal has to go to the Tribunal consisting of one lawyer sitting with two assessors, which is not a desirable form of Tribunal for consideration of these matters of major principle, policy and importance.
The second reason the Attorney-General's arguments particularly impressed me with the desirability of retaining the Statutory Instruments procedure relates to the protection of the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman is launching out into uncharted and wide seas in which he may be attacked, not only by every housewife but by every manufacturer who may happen to have in his factory apparatus of a type which might cause interference. If all those people are to be able to serve a notice on the Postmaster-General calling on him either to withdraw his notice or to appear before the Tribunal, it is likely that the Tribunal, which has powers to direct the Postmaster-General, might adopt an attitude from which the Postmaster-General would be only too pleased to escape. Therefore, for the Postmaster-General's protection, it is desirable that this Amendment be carried.
Mr. Turton: When the Attorney-General addressed us, he left with me the impression that a manufacturer who was dissatisfied with the regulations would have a right of appeal to the Tri-

655
bunal. I think that, on examination, that is not the effect. In fact, the appeal is against a particular notice. A later Clause defines who has that right of appeal. It is the person having possession of the offending instrument or a person having "any interest in." I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether a manufacturer of an offending instrument has by legal interpretation "an interest in." I cannot believe that that could be so construed.
Take the example of neon lights. I expect the Postmaster-General is saying that when neon lighting recurs, he will put in a regulation saying that all neon lights have to be suppressed at a cost of at least £5 an installation. I believe it will be more than that. In other words, the cost of neon lighting will be prohibitive, and yet that regulation can only be challenged by a Prayer in the House of Commons, probably after 11 p.m., and there will be no opportunity for the manufacturers of neon lighting to come to the House under the special procedure and argue their case by learned counsel. If I am right, if in fact there is no real appeal provided in this Bill for the manufacturer, the Committee must reconsider their attitude on this case. It is only recently that, in order to deal with cases like that, we passed the Measure quoted in our Amendment. Perhaps that Measure is not the right one, perhaps another procedure is required, but I ask the Committee to deal with this matter, and to give the manufacturer some right of redress against the regulations made by the Postmaster-General, because at present he has no rights at all.
Captain Crookshank: May I press the Attorney-General on this matter, because I believe he has inadvertently misled us. We are talking about the regulations and not what happens after the regulations. I may have missed it in the Bill, but I cannot see that at this stage anybody has any right of appeal. The right of appeal comes in the next Clause when there is damage done as the result of the regulations. What we were trying to safeguard was the position of those who knew that certain things were about to be done, so that, when they saw the regulations but before the regulations were in force, and before they had notices to do certain
656
things, they should have the right to come to this House and get the regulations altered. This may have great industrial results, and therefore we consider that it is only the special procedure which can safeguard the persons concerned. As I read the Bill, the appeal tribunal comes in at a later stage, and there is no right of access earlier by manufacturers or anybody else while the regulations are being drafted and presented to the House of Commons.
The Attorney-General: That is certainly quite true. I hope I did not convey a different impression. I said the right arose under Clause 11 and that it was a right on the part of any person affected by the regulations, the regulations having been made, to go to the Tribunal and say that those regulations ought to be relaxed in his or her favour. I quite agree with the point that has been made in regard to the position of the manufacturer. Perhaps we have tended to ride off on the housewife and with a rather loose rein in this matter. The position in practice is that the manufacturer who found himself injuriously affected by a regulation would not have much difficulty in making his views known to the Tribunal. He would get the individual user of a piece of his apparatus—the housewife who had bought a flat iron from him—to appeal to the Tribunal, and he would himself appeal to the Tribunal as a party interested.
Captain Crookshank: Can she appeal unless a notice is served?
The Attorney-General: If no notice had been served on anybody, the manufacturer would not need to worry about the matter. It is only when the notice is served that the matter becomes of practical importance to him. When it does, because a notice has been served on someone using his apparatus, he can go to the Tribunal to which that person has applied, and ask to be heard as a person interested. It is perfectly true that he cannot initiate an appeal; the appeal has to be initiated by the user on whom the notice is served; but the appeal having been initiated, he is the person interested as the manufacturer of the apparatus to which the notice relates, and he can go to the Tribunal and support her case. So that in practice the result is as I have

657
said: he can be heard by the Tribunal, and if the Tribunal thinks that the regulations ought not to be applied to that piece of apparatus, it will so direct. Having so directed, the Postmaster-General obviously would not serve further notices in respect of that apparatus in similar circumstances.
Sir William Darling: The Attorney-General has made an excellent explanation but I am concerned with this point. Suppose I am the purchaser of a flat iron or a milking machine, or some other electrical device, which I have had in my possession for about two years. Suddenly I am warned by the Postmaster-General that it is causing an interference, so I go to my manufacturer and complain about this machine. He says, "My dear Darling"—that kind of colloquialism is not infrequent—he says, "My dear sir, we have abandoned that plant now; we have given up the old type of machine and you, my dear friend, should buy a new one." That is the quandary in which I may be placed.
The Attorney-General has told me that I should go to my manufacturer and complain to him that the Postmaster-General is making it difficult for me. That is not much of a resort because in these days of changing electrical equipment—and, believe me, it is a rapidly advancing business—what is up to date this year is out of date next year. So it looks to me as if these regulations may well discourage the use of electrical appliances altogether, and persons who are asked to use them will say, "No, the Postmaster-General has the electric field for wireless; that is the industry we are to encourage in this country, and electric machines for dress-making or milking or any other purpose—
The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman also is getting a little away from the Amendment before the Committee, which is to leave out "regulations," and to insert "orders."
Sir W. Darling: I was following the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. H. Strauss: I differ from the Attorney-General with the greatest hesitation on any point of legal interpretation, but has he not inadvertently given a wrong impression to the Com-
658
mittee? Where a notice has been given, is he quite confident that the manufacturer will have any interest in the apparatus within the meaning of Clause 11 (3)?
The Attorney-General: No, I was looking at Subsection (4). I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. I think it is arguable that a manufacturer would not have an interest in the apparatus within the meaning of Subsection (3), but he clearly has an interest in Subsection (4) which says: "any other person appearing to them to be interested"—not interested in the piece of apparatus, but interested in the matter of the appeal.
Mr. Turton: The Attorney-General has not answered the illustration I gave of neon lighting. Will not the regulations under this Bill affect that? The cost may be so prohibitive that no purchaser will buy an advertising sign, so there will be no opportunity of a notice to be served. Yet the sign trade will be gravely affected by this Bill. Surely that is the kind of case for which there should be some right of the manufacturers of neon signs to have their case presented to Parliament? I am told that there is no graver cause of interference with sound wireless than neon lighting. For those reasons the Attorney-General should reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage, and provide some procedure so that the manufacturer has a proper right of appeal, not the hole-and-corner method which may be suggested in some paragraph of a later Subsection.
Mr. Grimston: I rise to make a further appeal to the Minister. As he was saying, perhaps we have had the housewife too much in mind over this. The protection which we here seek to put in the Bill has the manufacturer more in mind. The procedure proposed for the housewife is manifestly absurd and was not intended for the particular case we have in mind. We consider that there is a case in respect of the manufacturer who thinks that he may be damnified by regulations which are to be proposed, and that he should have available more opportunity than this Bill gives him to make his protest and to get these regulations amended before they come before the House, where they cannot be amended.

659
8.0 p.m.
We have had some discussion on this matter and I think that all that my right hon. and gallant Friend and I would ask the Postmaster-General to do at the moment is to give an undertaking that he will really look at this matter again. This Bill has been thrown at us all rather quickly. We have done the best we can to meet points at short notice. It may be that we have too cumbrous a procedure here, but despite what the Attorney-General says, it does not appear that the manufacturer has reasonable facilities for making known his point of view at the stage when the regulations are being made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has pointed out, in the case of neon lighting serious matters may be involved for the manufacturers of neon lighting and those who use neon advertisements, and they should have more opportunity than is given by waiting for regulations to be 'made and then having to wait for a notice to be served before they can take action. I think the Attorney-General should give further thought to this matter, and not turn this matter down completely at this stage.
The Attorney-General: We shall certainly give further thought to the matter but it is difficult to find a half-way procedure which is not so cumbrous and dilatory as the special Parliamentary procedure proposed here. We will certainly consider it from the point of view proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Captain Crookshank: In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert:
"(c) in the case of any apparatus which is liable to cause interference with wireless telegraphy such regulations relating to manufacture as may be necessary to ensure that no undue interference is caused by the use of the manufactured article."
Our previous discussion had this Amendment very much in mind. In our view this Amendment strikes at the root of the whole approach to the problem. The Postmaster-General is, in effect, taking up the attitude that he will say
660
to the users of all this apparatus—flat irons, Hoovers, etc.—that in spite of the fact that they bought the apparatus quite legally, they are not to be allowed to use it in future unless they fit a suppressor or otherwise comply with certain regulations. He is to have the power to say that to any housewife in the land. At the same time, as the Bill now stands, he is not to take any power to force manufacturers to put suppressors on these articles at the time of manufacture. It seems to me to be a most cock-eyed way of going about the matter and one which is manifestly unfair to the consumer.
Moreover, it will in many cases cost a great deal more. By the courtesy which has already been mentioned, some of us, including quite a number of Members opposite, have taken advantage of the opportunity of seeing some of these appliances which have been on view for our benefit for the last two days. I have been round that exhibition and obtained what knowledge I could there. I came away much reinforced in what I felt about the necessity of trying to do something more at the manufacturing end.
In general, I found that apart from the suppressor for motor cars, which I believe costs 1s. 6d. there was no suppressor at present on the market which can be bought for less than 10s. Some of them cost a great deal more than that. It will be a considerable imposition on the housewife to tell her that if she is to continue to use her flat iron or Hoover she must incur an expenditure of 10s. or 15s. in order that she may not interfere with someone else's amusement. That almost approaches the monstrous if the Postmaster-General is not at the same time to take any steps to see that suppressors are incorporated during the manufacture of the appliances. In the case of flat irons I understand that it will cost 10s. to fit a suppressor but that if a certain change were made in the manufactured article it would be possible, for an addition of 2s. to the cost of the iron, practically to cut out all interference. It may not cut it out entirely, but at all events for one-fifth of the cost in the manufacture all that is necessary can be done.
If we take another case, which is slightly different, I am told that so far as television is concerned, motor cars are

661
by far the worst cause of interference. There, the cost of the suppressor is very small, 1s. 6d., but it is only 9d. if the suppressor is fitted in the course of manufacture. I understand that it is possible to fit them now but the manufacturers are not doing so. One says, "This is not a thing which will sell the car. Unless my competitor intends to fit a suppressor, why should I do so?" That seems to be a very good reason for requiring that after a certain date motor cars should be fitted with suppressors. It will cost practically nothing.
One found out other things at the exhibition. Looking at the matter from another angle, it was demonstrated that if one fitted an aerial to a wireless set, it practically cut out the interference from a Hoover. I was certainly shown a demonstration of a Hoover running, and where a wireless had an ordinary inside aerial there was great interference. When the wireless was attached to an outside aerial the interference disappeared.
Mr. J. Lewis: I attended the same demonstration and would point out that the aerial was a special type of screened anti-interference aerial which costs £10.
Mr. Grimston: The point I wish to make is that it has tended to be ruled out that anything can be done about this interference at the receiver end. I think that more time should be allowed to see what can be done in that direction. This Bill will compel housewives to incur more expense in connection with their domestic appliances simply because they are interfering with the amusement of other people. I understand that the same is true with regard to television and motor cars, but there the cost of heightening the aerial of a television set is enormous.
The point I should like to make to the Committee is this: all this may be so today, but who is to say that later on fresh discoveries will not be made? After all, if anyone had got up in this House only 25 years ago and talked about television he would have been told he was competing with Jules Verne. How do we know, now, that there will not be any discovery whereby interference will be dealt with chiefly at the receiver end? Neither do the technicians, although at the present time they do not see it to be possible. In these realms of radio there are fields as yet unexplored and things undreamed of. Who are we to place burdens
662
on people in the execution of their ordinary daily lives merely because they are interfering with someone else's amusement. We should think a great deal before we place these burdens upon them.
This Bill should not be passed unless the Postmaster-General takes the same powers to impose these conditions at the manufacturing end as those he is taking to impose at the other end. I believe that is the correct way to deal with much of the problem and my hon. Friends and myself are moving this Amendment because we consider, apart from anything else, that it is very unfair to attempt to impose these burdens on the users, who may be small people, while at the same time taking no steps to see that in the future manufacturers are compelled to incorporate suppressors in the course of manufacture. We think that is the correct procedure, not only from the point of view of fairness to the consumer but from the fact that incorporation costs a great deal less in the process of manufacture than it would if the suppressors were fitted afterwards.
Mr. J. Lewis: I rise to support the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in the Amendment which he has moved. In my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to suggest to the Postmaster-General that it would be reasonable in the circumstances and should be within the provisions of this Bill, that where economically possible, manufacturers should be compelled to fix suppressors in order that users should not at some time in the future find themselves liable to penalties under these regulations when it would have been possible to avoid this liability if suppressors had been fitted at the source of manufacture.
In common with the hon. Member for Westbury and other hon. Members, I attended the exhibition which was held a few days ago and saw for myself something of what the electrical trades industry has been able to do in order to minimise—I use the word advisedly—the effects of this interference. But if we assume, as the hon. Member for Westbury did, that it will be possible in the very near future, or even in a year or two, to suppress interference at the receiver end, then I think we should be very unwise. Any reliance on that supposition might lead us into more than intellectual difficulties.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Grimston: I do not want to convey the impression that I thought the solution to this problem was around the corner. What I wanted to suggest was that one should not rule out the possibility of a solution being discovered at some stage.
Mr. Lewis: I appreciate the hon. Member's argument, but we should remember that the type of interference which is caused by the emission of electricity is precisely the same as—or, at any rate, very similar to—that caused by atmospherics. They are the same form of electrical impulses. In the last 20 years research has been going on into the problem of atmospherics but it has not been found possible to achieve any real results without reducing signal strength and the selectivity of the receiver. I do not think we can anticipate that it will be possible to deal with this problem at a low cost in the near future.
The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the possibility of fixing a special type of aerial which in itself would have the effect of suppressing the major part of the interference. It is possible to fit a type of aerial, but it is a rather special type of apparatus, known as a screened anti-interference aerial, and the cost would be 10 guineas. In those circumstances, I am sure the hon. Member for Westbury would agree that it is not something which every household would be in a position to install.
Consequently, we have to rely more on a fitted type of suppressor to deal with the interference, either a flex lead suppressor or some device incorporated into the apparatus, in order to overcome the difficulty. So far as manufacturers of electrical apparatus are concerned, I think my right hon. Friend will be in a position to tell the House that over a long period a great deal of co-operation has taken place between the Electrical Trades Industry and his Department, and that, as a result, many cheap, simple types of suppressors have been developed which can be incorporated at a fairly low cost. As the hon. Member for Westbury pointed out, in the case of an electrical iron, which creates a lot of trouble, it is possible, for the sum of 2s. or 3s., instead of incorporating the present type of thermostat, which is affected by jerks and constantly causes interference, to
664
have some form of mica condenser with an improved type of magnetic thermostat which virtually overcomes the difficulty. It cannot be overcome altogether.
Turning to electric razors, these, of course are luxuries and could not be regarded in any way as essential. It is not possible to incorporate in the electric razor a device which would prevent interference. It is possible to fix one in the flex lead. Under those circumstances, there would be a substantial additional cost—9s. 6d. to 10s. Razors cause a great deal of interference to a large number of people in certain areas and I think the public should have the option either of purchasing an electric razor without a flex lead suppressor, and thus running the risk of contravening the regulations under the Act, or, alternatively, the lead suppressor should be available for sale with the razor if people want to buy the unit as a whole. In Royal Air Force stations during the war it was not permitted to use electric razors without a suppressor because of the interference with radio equipment and high navigational aid apparatus.
There is no doubt, now that the manufacturers, in conjunction with the Post Office, will be able to give serious consideration to this problem, that it will be possible to introduce into the major number of electrical appliances a suppressor incorporated in the apparatus itself. This will have the effect of doing what the hon. Gentleman asks in his Amendment. I think it is a reasonable Amendment, and at all times we must remember that those people who cause interference are precisely the same people who receive it; it is John Citizen who pays both ways and suffers in both cases. I think we are asking a great deal of housewives and householders and it is quite reasonable that my right hon. Friend should have powers, and certainly he should exercise them, in the right instances, in order to ensure that where it is possible to fix suppressors during manufacture they should be fitted.
Mr. C. Williams: I am afraid I shall be unable to follow the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) in his very considerable knowledge of matters dealing with wireless or electricity of steps to be taken in these cases, which is very creditable to him, but I am glad to find we have on the other side one hon. Gentleman who agrees that this is a good Amendment. If

665
we do not get a satisfactory answer and we have to divide I hope he will follow us into the Lobby.
When we look at the enormous possibilities in the future development of this industry, we should try to do everything we can to see that the necessary adjustments are made in the original article. Tribute has been paid to the fact that the great electrical industries in this country are working hard on this matter, but 1 should like to know what the position is about fitting new apparatus. We all agree that there is a certain amount of interference which should be dealt with but, I want to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to a question which was raised during the Second Reading Debate.
The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) asked whether the cost of fitting would be 30s. for each piece of apparatus. The Assistant Postmaster-General astonished the House when he said that in no circumstances would anyone have to pay anything under the Bill. That did not satisfy me. I am not that sort of mug, but the "dumb-bells" of Plymouth followed the hon. Gentleman and the Government into the Lobby. We ought to know whether a person will be liable to a charge for putting right his apparatus. The only real way out of all this is to go back to the manufacturing end. I think it monstrous of the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that there would be no charge at all. He deceived the simple-minded Lady who represents the Sutton Division of Plymouth, sand she followed him into the Lobby in the usual Lobby-fodder way.
Mr. Cobb: I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), who made a good case up to a point, although I do not think he took it to its logical conclusion. There are several economic issues involved in this matter, which he did not mention. May I put this analysis to the Committee? 1 believe that the principal interferers with wireless reception are motor cars and medical apparatus. Practically every motor car interferes with television reception when it is running near a set, and it is almost impossible to stop it unless a suppressor is fitted. There is, therefore, an argument in favour of cars and medical apparatus being fitted with sup-
666
pressors wherever television sets are in operation. At the moment, however, such sets are in operation only in the Greater London area, and it would be unfair to put the onus of fitting suppressors on those who are at present using cars in, say, the North of England.
Another cause of interference is the vacuum cleaner. If a suppressor were fitted during manufacture the cost would be 2s. If the suppressor is bought by the user from the electrical dealer the cost would be 10s. to 15s. Other interferers are lifts in flats, the cost of suppressing which would be about £5. or may even be about £10. Yet another cause of interference may be industrial machinery in factories. The hon. Member for Westbury argued that all vacuum cleaners should be fitted with suppressors which would cost 2s. to, manufacture. But that is not the added selling cost to the public. The usual margin between manufacturing and selling cost is 2.5. For every 1,000 vacuum cleaners the calculation is 1,000 times 2s. times 2.5. That is the increased selling price to the public. It will not be 2s. but 5s. Supposing that only 10 per cent. of the apparatus put on the market creates interference, should we ask millions of people to pay 5s. because we have made it compulsory for all apparatus at the manufacturing stage to be fitted with a suppressor, or should 10 per cent. of several million people pay 10s. or 15s.? That is the economic problem to be faced. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has taken it into consideration, and that that is why the Bill is drafted in its present terms.
There is the export argument to be considered. An important factor in obtaining export business is price. It is important not to disturb the mass production rhythm of a factory. If every article for the home market has to be fitted with an interference suppressor which is not needed if it is for export it would increase the cost of export business; it would mean that only a small number of the factory's output of articles without the suppressor would be needed, which would upset the rhythm of the factory's production. It is the case that in much of this electrical apparatus sold abroad a difference of sixpence in the cost makes all the difference between getting business and losing it. So we ought to be very careful on these two scores about insisting that all electrical

667
apparatus that might interfere ought to be fitted with suppressors.
8.30 p.m.
Shortly, we come to this position. In some cases, notably cars and vacuum cleaners, every piece of apparatus that goes on the market creates interference: every car that is driven near a television set will interfere with the television set. We have other pieces of electrical apparatus of which only a very small percentage will create interference. We have pieces of apparatus that can be used on A.C. mains and will not interfere but which, when used on D.C. mains, will interfere. Only 6,000 homes in this country, approximately, are on D.C. mains now. It is, obviously, economically wrong to insist that every piece of apparatus that goes on to the market shall be fitted with a suppressor merely because it interferes when connected with direct current mains. There is a certain class of interference, such as that caused by motor cars, which creates interference only on the short waves and not on the medium broadcasting bands.
Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend is right in the way he has shaped this Bill. We want a situation in which, if one particular piece of apparatus, such as a motor car, creates interference, we may first of all try to persuade the motor car manufacturers to make a suppressor. to be standard on every motor car; a situation in which in the event of their refusing to do this, a regulation can be issued to make the fitting of a suppressor compulsory in that single case. I do not think it would be economical to say that that should be the case with apparatus which interferes in only a small number of cases. I do not think that the load we should put on the buying public—the extra price we would ask them to pay for this work—would be justified. I think my right hon. Friend has studied this correctly and has come to the right conclusion.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I should like to correct a wrong impression that seems to have prevailed both in the Debate on Second Reading and again tonight. There has been an impression that if motor cars were fitted with suppressors, and if the manufacturers were compelled to do this, everything would be all right.
668
That would not be so. In any event, it would take some time for the manufacturers to deal with the matter. We should have to have legislation compelling the manufacturers to look into the whole question; and we should have to learn whether, from the engineering point of view, it is possible to turn out a standard article. All this would take time. Besides, there is the other side to the question—that there are all these appliances that we use today that are liable to cause interference. Not all these things are causing interference by any means; only a small portion of this apparatus causes interference. There is, however, the question of whether or not it may cause interference. It would be some years before the apparatus now in the homes of the people could be supplanted by new apparatus, even after it had become standard apparatus and was guaranteed to resist interference.
Mr. C. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring also to what happened at the end of the Debate on Second Reading, when the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) said that this course might mean interference with people and involve them in expenditure, to which the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the answer was a straightforward "No"?
Mr. Paling: I will deal with that point before I sit down. I listened very carefully, of course, to the Debate on Second Reading, and took notice that there was a good deal to be said for dealing with this question. The argument put forward was that we were dealing with the users of the apparatus but were doing nothing to compel those at the other end—the manufacturing end—to do anything about it. I said at the time that we had been in consultation with the electrical people, and that we hoped to get the co-operation of the manufacturers on a voluntary basis. However, there did seem to be a rather big opinion in the House that day that we should do rather more than that.
Let me come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and what has been said about suppression. He referred to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and the answer given to her.

669
I will answer this way. I have not been to the exhibition which the hon. Gentleman opposite talked about, but we have had an exhibition at the Post Office. There is a suppressor now which is fitted with a switch off the mains to serve several different pieces of apparatus in a house. It costs about 14s. The Post Office people take it around with them and fit it for that sum, and it is very effective indeed. Other pieces of individual apparatus are even cheaper; but it is a fact that they cost money. I say that in answer to the hon. Member for Torquay.
We do not think this Amendment would have the effect that would warrant it, but I give the promise to the Committee that, between now and Report stage, I will look into this matter to see if I can find ways and means of dealing with it at the source. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for what he has said. He will observe that all we have tried to do in this Amendment is to give him the power to do something; we have not specified what. I must take up one point made by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). I cannot make up my mind whether, at the end of his speech, he was opposing the Amendment, whether he was neutral or whether he was supporting it.
Mr. Cobb: I was opposing it.
Mr. Grimston: I would point out to the hon. Member that all we were doing was to make the Amendment permissive. I appreciate his economic arguments, and one of the reasons why we moved the earlier Amendment, which I do not think he supported, was in order to enable the manufacturers to have the procedure put before the House before the regulations were made. We should have been glad to have had his support then. 1 do not want to detain the Committee, as the Postmaster-General has met us on this matter. I am glad to accept his undertaking, and we shall look forward to seeing on the Report stage, the method by which he proposes to meet the point of view expressed on all sides of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out line 3.
The words which it is proposed to leave out are:
"Not being wireless telegraphy apparatus."
We have put down the Amendment as an inquiry Amendment because we do not quite understand why that apparatus should be excluded from the Subsection. I should be glad if the Postmaster-General would tell us why it is so excluded.
Mr. Paling: The effect of the Amendment would be to enable interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus to be dealt with under the provisions of Part II of the Bill. Part I of the Bill enables the Postmaster-General to deal with interference caused by wireless telegraphy apparatus, and the Amendment would merely provide unnecessary additional power. In other words, the powers are already there if we want to use them.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir Richard Acland: There is one point I should like to raise about the apparatus with which these regulations will deal. I do not think I should have been in Order had I tried to raise it on the last substantial Amendment which we discussed. I want to ask the Postmaster-General a question on the sort of procedure he will adopt in making these regulations, and whether he will take rather energetic steps to reduce, as far as possible, the expense to which private citizens will be put in complying with these regulations.
What I have in mind is this. I went, as did some others, to the exhibition which has been referred to—and I am most grateful to those who arranged it—and saw the little suppressor which can be attached to a vacuum cleaner or an electric razor—I do not know if it is exactly the same in both cases; there may be variations according to the apparatus to which the suppressor is to be attached—which, as matters now stand, costs 9s. 6d. I gather, putting it very bluntly, that the net effect of some

671
of the regulations, when they are made and brought into force, will be that we shall say to a large number of owners of vacuum cleaners, electric irons and electric razors: "Unless you fit a suppressor you must not use your vacuum cleaner any more." That is what it will come to.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Or growing a beard.
Sir R. Acland: The same applies to motor car owners, and so on. Now, the question of price becomes rather relevant here. I do not think it is a great hardship to me or to any other motor car owner to have to spend Is. 6d. or 2s. in order that we shall not interfere with our neighbours' television. That seems to me perfectly reasonable. But I fear there are an awful lot of people to whom it will seem a very great burden to have to pay 9s. 6d. for a suppressor in order that their vacuum cleaner or electric iron shall not offend their neighbours.
I am thoroughly in favour of this Bill. I think it is a magnificent Bill. I do not want to put it too high, but I do think it is an admirable thing that the community should be addressing itself seriously to the task of clearing up this interference business so that ordinary citizens may, as far as possible, listen to wireless programmes without this intolerable interference—which, of course, becomes more and more intolerable as people use their wirelesses more and more for culture and education and less and less as background noise. If we are to go at it seriously, it seems to me that we shall need a lot of these suppressors. I understand that at the moment they are being manufactured in small quantities of about 2,000 to 3,000 a year. I think we shall need at least 100,000, and probably something like 200,000. Cannot the Postmaster-General go into this business in a big way, place an order for 200,000 and then call on some of the experts of Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer's to assist the manufacturers?
8.45 p.m.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he appears to be going very far beyond this Clause. His remarks might be appropriate to some other occasion—perhaps to the Third Reading.
Sir R. Acland: With great respect, Major Milner, the extent to which one might wish to put down Amendments on the Report stage will depend on whether the Postmaster-General can tell us that he will look at this problem so that these domestic appliances can be put out at a very low price. I have not the slightest doubt that if an order for 200,000 suppressors is placed and the experts of Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer's are brought in, the manufacturers will be able to produce these things for about 2s.
Sir Ian Fraser: There is an industrial aspect of this problem in regard to which I want to ask a question. Certain metal-using processes create, as a by-product, very finely divided particles of metal which go up the stack into the air. These by-products are of great value, and so these fine particles of metal have to be collected. They are collected electrostatically, which means that a very high voltage, perhaps 50,000 volts, is used. There are metal plates between which this high voltage passes, and the pressure produces exactly the kind of radiation that causes very great interference. It is possible, with a factory such as I have in mind, where three or four of these electrostatic dust or particle collectors are used, to produce interference within a radius of a quarter of a mile, so that within that area no television can be operated, and certainly cinemas using television in the future will not be able to operate.
We have to choose, when making the regulations, between shutting down this business, which employs 5,000 people, or moving the television cinemas, and depriving the people of the use of television. That is the issue before us, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider, in making the regulations, that it is impracticable to order certain manufacturers to stop this kind of interference? The solution can lie only in the longterm development of the radio industry, and by transmitting and receiving in such a way that there is no interference.
My own belief is that the proper way to transmit, in a small compact country like this, is along the ordinary electric light cables instead of through the ether, so that wherever there is a power point, it is possible to plug in a radio set. This is possible, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The issue of principle behind this matter is whether we are going to

673
force listeners by regulation to protect the goods or apparatus which they buy, or going to compel the industry, which is trying to sell its products, to serve its customers in a way which will give them satisfaction?
I can remember 20 years ago, a friend of mine, who was a designer and inventor in one of the big radio companies, telling me that he had designed a seven, eight or 10-valve set which was quite a new thing then. It kept on receiving weak signals from a distance which hitherto had not been done. No sooner had he designed it and had it on test, than he found that the electrical interference of London—trams, cables, lifts and so on—was rendering useless all the research work he had done. I was then a young Member of this House and was interested in radio. I was asked whether I could not raise the matter in the House and do something for him.
Since those days these difficulties have been overcome, not by suppressing or interfering with the general users of trams, buses, lifts, switches and irons, but by the radio industry finding that it could not sell a set which made such a frightful row. It had to produce a set which received the signals that were wanted and not those that were not wanted. It is along that line of development that we should seek the solution of this problem. It is rather like the argument met with in the countryside—shall we pasteurise dirty milk or persuade people to produce clean milk? Here the question is—shall we compel people to put in an expensive apparatus to get rid of unwanted signals, or should the trade develop a method whereby the listener receives only the wanted signal? I believe it is quite impossible to make regulations which will compel industry to avoid sending out these interfering waves, and I should like the Postmaster-General to assure us that he is not trying that impossible task, and also that he is not going to shut down an essential business in which a large number of our people are employed.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) referred to the fact that he went to an exhibition the other day. I myself went to that exhibition this morning, and I found that the hon. Baronet got rather involved at that exhibition I was told that he "slated"
674
one of the men for not having bought his shirts at the "Co-op."
Sir R. Acland Sir R. Acland rose—
The Chairman: I do not think that is a question which arises here.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I am sorry if the question does not arise here, but the point I was dealing with was the hon. Baronet's suggestion that the Postmaster-General should manufacture these suppressors. In my view, it would be quite wrong for the Postmaster-General to start manufacturing any such article, because if he did, instead of it being 9s. 6d., the cost would probably be 19s. 6d.
Sir R. Acland: I suggested that the Postmaster-General should place with the manufacturer an order so big that the manufacturer himself would be able to manufacture at very much less than the present cost which is largely fixed because he does not know how many he is going to sell. On the other point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, he is implying, I think, that I was somewhat discourteous to our hosts. We are coming from suppressors to political points, on which we differ, but if there was discourtesy to our kind hosts—
The Chairman: The hon. Baronet has made one speech already, and the question of manufacture does not arise under this Clause at all. This Clause deals with what the regulations should provide.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I ask the Postmaster-General to assure us that when these suppressors are made, he will have competition and, further, that he will put the tender out to a number of firms so that there will be real competition.
Mr. Turton: I want to ask the Postmaster-General a question. On page 10, lines 4 and 5, there is reference to "apparatus" as a term including any form of electric line. Will he tell us what that means? Does it mean that he can make regulations providing that wiring in houses shall be of a certain nature or of a certain correctness? It is important. If faulty wiring is included in the Clause, it will mean that we shall have the right hon. Gentleman's minions coming in and taking up

675
floor boards when exercising their right of search. It will mean inspecting the flooring and walls of houses. If not, these words are rather loosely drawn and we should have an assurance on the point.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: The reply to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser), whose speech raised a number of considerations, is that most of those considerations will have to be in the minds of the technical committee which is to make regulations on the matter. I hope that we shall never have to do anything so drastic as shutting down whole firms. There are ways and means of dealing with these things. They may not be so inexpensive as the ways of dealing with household apparatus. In some cases it might be fairly expensive. These considerations are in mind and will have to be taken into account by the people who make the regulations.
Sir I. Fraser: It must not be assumed that it can be done, even at some expense. The firm that I know of would not mind in the least spending £1,000 or £2,000 in the interests of the work-people who live around, but it cannot do it. During the war the Army came to this firm and said, "You are interfering with our signals and our monitoring service." The firm replied, "Very -well, send in all your experts and look into the matter." The experts were brought in. They found it impossible to prevent the interference and so the Army monitoring service, which was a very substantial unit, moved away because they could not operate at that place. The fact is that these things cannot be done by regulation. I am warning the right hon. Gentleman that if he takes these powers and tries to exercise them they will inevitably lead to his having to shut down processes.
Mr. Paling: I am informed that it can be done. In any event, the hon. Member may be assured that we shall keep those considerations in mind. In regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), I should like to correct any misunderstanding that may exist. There seems to be an idea that when this Bill becomes law everybody will have to rush and buy suppressors to put on all kinds of apparatus. The number of suppressors
676
will be decided by the amount of interference. What we do at the moment when we get a complaint is to try to track down the source of interference and advise the people there what to do about it and how to fit the kind of suppressor which is necessary. We shall continue on those lines. I do not see any necessity for manufacturers to rush into expense. I have recently seen a suppressor devised by Post Office engineers at a cost altogether of about 14s. It can be used upon a number of pieces of apparatus in the home. Some of the others, for motorcars and so on, can be purchased for a few shillings. I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
9.0 p.m.
Mr. D. Marshall: I am certain the Postmaster-General will agree that if he can possibly do anything with regard to the Post Office's own services, it should be done. A constituent of mine has written to me on this matter. The Committee are well aware that I have no technical knowledge, but this constituent has. He writes:
"One of the worst offenders is the Post Office itself. Its automatic dialling system affects considerably and influences considerably matters of interference."
Has the Postmaster-General any information on that matter? if not, will he look into it and see whether there is substance in that point?
Mr. Paling: The hon. Member is probably referring to interference from automatic telephone exchanges. The answer is that we do get complaints and we fix suppressors in cases where suppressors are necessary.
Clause ordered to stand part or the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of regulations under last preceding section.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 10, line 16, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 17, and to insert:
"(b) he is satisfied that the use of the apparatus in question is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy used for the purposes of any safety of life service

677
or for any purpose on which the safety of any person or of any vessel, aircraft or vehicle may depend."
The Chairman: It will probably be convenient to the hon. and learned Gentleman to discuss this Amendment and the next three Amendments together. In page 10, line 20, leave out from "notice," to second "the," in line 21, and to insert:
"which may be the date of the service thereof."
In line 26, leave out from beginning, to end of line 43.
In page 11, line 3, leave out from beginning, to end of line 8.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner. This is a Clause of great importance, perhaps the most important Clause in the Bill. It is the Clause which enables the Postmaster-General, by service of a notice, to prohibit the use of any piece of apparatus by any individual. It may be, on the one hand, that machinery of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) can be prevented from operating by the service of such a notice at the instance of the Postmaster-General, not on the grounds of interference with signals affecting the safety of an individual, but purely on the ground that they affect the reception of broadcasting or television. Going to the other extreme, the Clause enables the Postmaster-General to prohibit the use by any housewife of any electric iron or other domestic electrical implement normally used in houses. That is a power the like of which has never been possessed by any Minister in this country before, at any rate in recent history.
I want to make it quite clear that the Opposition do not object to the Postmaster-General having these powers of prohibition when a case is made out that the use of the apparatus is causing undue interference and that is in itself endangering human safety. The Amendments in no way cut down or limit the powers of the right hon. Gentleman where safety is involved, but their effect is to extinguish his power to prohibit the use of any domestic appliance, bought perfectly innocently and lawfully, merely because it is interfering with a neighbour's television set. We recognise that interference with wireless and television reception exists.
678
We recognise, too, that something may have to be done about it. However, we do not believe that to prevent that interference these drastic powers should be possessed by His Majesty's Postmaster-General.
We were told in the course of the Second Reading Debate that the sole aim of Part II of the Bill is to give the Postmaster-General powers to take effective action in the case of the few selfish people who will not play, even when it is made clear to them that their appliances are causing interference with wireless reception. To take effective action in the case of the few selfish people, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to take power to prohibit the use by any motorist of a car or by any housewife of an electric iron, electric cleaner, or any other piece of electrical equipment, and it may be, if the view put forward by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is right, that this power would prevent the use of electric wiring in that house.
I venture to suggest that the fact that there may be a few selfish people who do not respond to persuasion is really not sufficient to justify the Government taking these extensive powers. It is true that, having been served with a notice prohibiting the use of the electric iron or kettle, after 28 days the householder is entitled to serve a counter notice which may, where safety is not involved, postpone the operation of the prohibition until the matter has been determined by the tribunal.
I do not know what expense will be involved to the householder who wants to go on using the electric iron, in bringing the matter before the tribunal. It may be that considerable expense may be involved. I possess little technical knowledge on this, but I should like to be told whether it is or is not the case that, if a suppressor is fitted to an electric iron for working it off a plug which is earthed down by the floorboards, it will still be necessary to fit another kind of suppressor if one wants to run that electric iron off the electric light plug. If that be the case, a great deal of difficulty will be encountered in preventing undue interference.
The point of these Amendments is to stop the Postmaster-General taking powers, which in our view are excessive

679
and entirely unwarranted, for the purpose merely of preventing a few selfish people from not taking action to prevent interference by their instruments.
Mr. Turton: I urge the Committee to consider that the Bill is approaching this problem from the wrong angle. I am quite certain that not only the majority but nearly everybody in this country would fit suppressors voluntarily, and that there would be no need for this method of compulsion except in certain cases where compulsion would throw onerous financial burdens on the people and put them to considerable inconvenience. The types of interference with television and radar are, I believe, limited to cars, diathermy, and to the radio amateurs we talked about in Part I of this Bill.
Mr. Hobson: And industrial machinery.
Mr. Turton: And, of course, industrial machinery. Domestic utensils such as the electric iron, the electric razor, the Hoover and the electric blanket do not affect television or radar.
Therefore, on the housewife would be thrown all the penal provisions of this Bill primarily to suit the convenience of somebody else who has a television set as opposed to a sound receiver. That is very unreasonable, especially when we consider that we have been 13 years before taking any steps in this matter. I should have thought that the Government would be content for the present with their powers under Clause 10 and would refrain from taking the powers of enforcement until they find that revolutionaries are trying to oppose the more peaceful method of obeying the Government regulations.
Furthermore, I do not believe that at present these suppressing devices are really effective. Therefore, we shall have the Postmaster-General issuing regulations ordering devices for suppression which either will not work or will work only with great inconvenience to the housewife. Take the example of the electric iron. If the Minister attacked the problem the other way and asked manufacturers to insert such a device, the results would be effective and there would be no cause for complaint. The electric iron at present costs 39s. 6d. and when we add to that the cost of the suppressor
680
—given by the Assistant Postmaster-General during the Second Reading as 30s.—the cost will be nearly doubled. In addition, it will not be possible to use the iron properly because the suppressor, which has to be on the flex, will get in the way. To be effective, the suppressor must be close up against the iron. No housewife will be able to iron conveniently with the suppressor close to the iron.
Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member is not quite correct. The suppressor can be placed at the plug point, which would not impede the free use of the iron.
Mr. Turton: Other Members of the Committee went to the demonstration and saw the effect of placing a suppressor at the plug point. They found that it hardly mitigated the interference. The makers of the suppressor stated, in fact, that unless it was fitted within two feet of the iron—in other words, at about knee height of the person using it—it would not cause any reduction in interference. We do not have a suppressor device which is sufficiently advanced to become effective as a means of enforcement. It is wrong, therefore, for the Postmaster-General, on mere grounds of convenience, to introduce this harsh method, which will result in fines, and the right of search which comes later in the Bill.
Let us consider the question of expense. One new wireless set, which will cost £10 to screen, may put neighbours to very much greater expense. I believe that to suppress an electric lift will cost £30 to £35. All this is extra expenditure which is going to be thrust on us. Every electric iron will cost 30s. Other appliances will cost 10s. for each suppressor. It is wrong that the Government should impose this financial burden on housewives and parents at a time when prices are going up and the cost of living is as dear as it now is.
I ask the Minster, therefore, to accept the Amendment. It gives him all that he really requires. On the important question of saving life he shall have every power he needs. Directly the notice is served, he can say that appliance shall no longer be used. When dealing with the mere convenience of other citizens, it is quite wrong that one should harry the housewives, as this Bill provides.
9.15 p.m.
The Attorney-General: The hon. baronet is riding off on and rather flogging his favourite mount the housewife—
Mr. Turton: Which hon. baronet?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is that the New Years' honours list?
The Attorney-General: I am sure that must be intelligent anticipation. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is riding off again on his favourite mount, the housewife, but the housewife is not running in this particular race and is not interested in this particular matter. She need have no fears about this Clause, particularly so long as it will be under the beneficent administration of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. The only person who need be troubled about the possible operation of this Clause is the selfish person who knowingly continues to use apparatus which is causing interference with the use of apparatus belonging to other persons. I do not think we need be especially concerned about the position of persons of that kind.
It is only in the case of the very few selfish people who, disregarding the comfort, convenience and well-being of other users, knowingly continue the use of apparatus which is causing inconvenience that there will be any need to exercise the powers of this Clause. But, in the absence of powers under a Clause of this kind capable of being used against selfish persons of that kind, there would be no way in which this new form of nuisance—because that really is what it is from a legal point of view—can be dealt with. I do not think hon. and hon. and learned Members opposite have suggested any effective alternative method of dealing with the selfish people who, having been told that their apparatus is causing interference and annoyance, fail to take—as they easily can take—steps to put an end to that interference or annoyance.
This Bill has been designed to deal with interference which not only prejudices the effective operation of those wireless telegraphy services and other wireless aids and devices which give safety at sea and safety in the air, but which prejudices
682
the efficiency of the ordinary broadcasting services, the communication services used by the police, the signal services used by the military, the telephone service, telegraph service and private wireless communication services which have been set up all over the country.
We are compelled to resist this Amendment, which would delete from the Bill the one Clause which enables the Postmaster-General, in an extreme case, to proceed against the selfish person who is interfering with the efficiency of those services. Some of these services, although they do not directly affect questions of safety of life in the air, or at sea, are important administrative services and others give great pleasure to countless millions of people. We are not prepared to restrict the provisions of this Bill which will contribute to the efficiency and the utility of those services and the pleasure they can give to those who use them.
It is true, of course, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, that the Clause enables the Postmaster-General to serve a notice prohibiting the use of particular apparatus, in those cases where that apparatus is causing a nuisance to other users of wireless apparatus in the neighbourhood. But that is by no means the end of the matter. That notice having been served, if the person against whom it is served still wishes to pursue the selfish course on which he has hitherto been set, and to continue using the apparatus, without fitting a suppressor which will cost him a few shillings, he can go to the tribunal and appeal.
It is an expeditious, economical and simple procedure. There is no need to employ counsel unless it is desired. The housewife who has a flat iron which is the subject of a notice can go herself and make her simply, homely appeal to the judge or experienced lawyer who will be presiding there; or the more wealthy person who is more seriously concerned with the notice which may be served upon him, can through the appropriate channels, instruct the hon. and learned Gentleman to represent him before the tribunal. I am quite sure that in those circumstances, having heard the housewife or having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, the tribunal. composed of quite competent and

683
commonsense people, will be able to come to a conclusion which is not unjust to the person against whom the notice is served, and which, at the same time, promotes the convenience, efficiency and comfort of the great mass of people whose services have been interfered with by the selfish conduct of the person against whom the notice has been served. We cannot agree to accept this Amendment.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate the force of what the Attorney-General said so far as it related to the words which the Amendment proposes to insert. It may be that these words are not free from criticism, but this Amendment seeks to delete Subsection (1, b). The Attorney-General said that this provision will apply only in the case of the selfish person whose apparatus is causing interference or a nuisance. That is not at all what the Bill says. If one reads it, one sees that the words used are,
"that the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy,…"
As I understand these words, they mean that where it is merely a case of the Postmaster-General thinking that the nature of the apparatus is such as to be likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy, these powers will at once be brought into use—which is quite a different thing from what the Attorney-General propounded in the course of his speech.
If the Attorney-General could say that the intention of this Clause is only to deal with the person whose apparatus is already causing interference, I should have at least some sympathy with that part of what he said. But I think that he has based his argument on entirely false premises. When one uses the word "likely," one does not imply the sort of consideration which he used, when one finds that it relates to "any wireless telegraphy" without specifying that that wireless telegraphy should even be in existence at the date when the Postmaster-General forms the opinion. These words are far too wide, and even if the Attorney-General cannot accept our Amendment, I consider that this part of the Clause needs to be seriously amended.
Sir I. Fraser: Even if that suggestion were accepted, and words provided which confined the operation of this to the selfish few, I should still object to it on entirely different grounds. It is not a question of whether this is to apply to many or a few or whether they are people whom we like or dislike. It is a bad principle to make the consumer conform to a particular standard in order that he may enjoy that which he wishes to enjoy.
Wireless is a new thing coming into a world which has had electricity for many years. Television is newer still. It is for them to make their way in the world, and citizens in large or small numbers should not be compelled to change their domestic habits in order that wireless may be received. It is for those who wish to sell wireless or television to provide some kind that will get into our homes and come out to our ears in an agreeable way, in spite of the environment and circumstances of this complicated society. It is not right to protect these infant industries from the technical difficulties from which they suffer. In that way they will be discouraged from themselves overcoming those difficulties.
There are hon. Members who can remember the early days of broadcasting in this country, when there was a manifestation—I think it was called reaction—in the old-fashioned radio set, when one coil was pushed near another and it whistled and howled. The consequence was that the receiver became a transmitter which made unpleasant noises in the receivers of neighbours. The engineers of those days made appeals over the wireless night after night saying, "Please do not do that," and made demonstrations to show what was being done. They did not succeed with their appeals and it was the trade itself which realised that unless it made sets that would not make those noises, it would not be able to sell its radio sets. The most effective check on the radio industry is that if it does not make sets which are satisfactory, it will not sell them. It is infinitely better to rely on that fact and the good economic law to operate than to shelter the industry from the interferences which now exist and which may arise with other and new technical developments.
Mr. George Ward: During the Second Reading of this Bill, several hon. Members, including the hon. Member

685
for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and myself, raised the important question of whether such powers have been found necessary in other countries. In my view that question was never satisfactorily answered. Although the Assistant Postmaster-General did make it clear that in America and Denmark legislation has been necessary to deal with interference with wireless telegraphy, the House was not told whether either of those countries, or any country, had imposed powers of entry.
9.30 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General went so far as to read an extract from the American law dealing with this subject. I would remind the Committee that it provided that no person should use or operate any apparatus in the transmission of wireless signals by radio within any State when any interference was caused. There is nothing there to suggest that compulsory powers of entry have been imposed. All it says is that if there is any interference, something will have to be done to stop it. That is the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). It seems to me that although, of course, we need not model our laws on those of other countries, although there is no need to follow them, at the same time we can learn from other countries which have been faced by this phenomenon. One of the first things to do, in drawing up a Bill of this kind, is to find out what other countries have found it necessary to do. I think that, even now, either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General ought to tell us whether or not any other country has taken these compulsory powers, because I feel that is a most important matter.
Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot think that the Attorney-General's argument on this occasion is quite worthy of the general standard he maintains in addressing us on this Bill. It is preposterous to say that a person caught by this Clause is necessarily a selfish person. There may be a comparatively poor person who lawfully bought useful apparatus lawfully manufactured, that complied with every regulation in force at the time of its manufacture; and he or she may be using it in his or her home for a lawful purpose; and then, because some neighbour buys an expensive television set, the poor person lawfully using his apparatus may
686
be suddenly confronted with a demand that he should either incur expenditure or cease to use the apparatus altogether. That is the effect of this Clause.
I concede entirely to the Government and to the Attorney-General that, of course, this is a difficult question. I also concede to the Attorney-General that the mischief aimed at has some resemblance to what is known in law as a "nuisance," —though it is an exceptional sort of nuisance when a person—perhaps a whole neighbourhood—has been using a certain type of apparatus, quite lawfully, and beneficially to himself and the community, and is suddenly, on account of a new invention, confronted with a demand that he shall cease to use that apparatus or incur expenditure.
What should be the normal way of dealing with this new problem? I agree with the Government that it is a new problem, and I sympathise with them in their desire to solve it. Surely, the only way to solve it is to make a regulation under which, first, all new apparatus has to be so designed and constructed as to be no nuisance; and, secondly, under which those who are called upon to alter their existing apparatus should be paid what it is necessary to spend in order to effect that alteration. To take, not an exact parallel, but a case somewhat akin: when anybody has his electric supply converted from direct current to alternating current and much of his apparatus is suddenly made useless, he is paid a sum by way of compensation in order to get apparatus that will suit the new conditions.
Why is not the arrival of television similarly a new condition which ought to enable those who have to adapt apparatus hitherto perfectly lawful to the new condition to be compensated for making the change? I should have thought that the sensible way of proceeding would have been to provide that those requiring the change of apparatus lawfully manufactured and acquired should pay the cost of that and, if necessary, recover it from the interests selling or buying the new apparatus the enjoyment of which requires a change in the older apparatus.
If we are to deal with selfishness, I wonder which selfishness causes more suffering in this country at the present moment—the housewife using some

687
simple electrical apparatus like a kettle or an iron or people using loudspeakers at all hours of the day and night or using them in their gardens, thus preventing all serious work or recreation of their neighbours.
It is true that there are certain provisions of the law to deal with such nuisance—either by by-law or by the law of nuisance—but nothing of an equally drastic character to that which is laid down in this Clause. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about people selfishly refusing to fit apparatus at a cost of a few shillings. He made two mistakes about that. The first mistake is that it may cost a great deal more than a few shillings, and the second is that there are many homes in this country which cannot afford the expenditure of even a few shillings in this way. Hon. Members opposite, in many other Debates, have not said that people should readily submit to new taxation or expenditure, and I believe that this Clause may cause very great hardship indeed.
I admit fully that the Government have a real problem to meet and that they wish too meet it, but in not providing any sort of recompense to the person suddenly subjected to this new expenditure, they are doing something which is oppressive and wrong.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The Government should tackle this problem by easy stages. I do not think that by bringing in hasty legislation in this form they will solve the problem at all. As the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) said, there are many ways of dealing with this problem—one is by fitting new equipment with suppressors, and another is by persuasion, so that we may see how we are getting along; but the bringing in of this Bill will not solve the problem completely. I ask the Postmaster-General how his Department can always detect the one who will not give way to persuasion. Is it possible to detect the using of an electric article, say, an iron, in a block of flats or hotel? I question whether it is.
I commend this particular Clause from the point of view of safety of life. That is the really important thing in the Bill, and it should be the first consideration. Legis-
688
lation to that effect must be brought in without further delay. We are now in the middle of the worst weather and we have aircraft coming in at night, frequently in deteriorating weather conditions, perhaps short of fuel, possibly with engine trouble and with up to 40 passengers and crew abroad. Their safety requires immediate legislation, and this Clause will give it. It may be that a householder is using electrical apparatus within a certain distance of a marker beacon on a blind approach system, which may cause an aircraft to overshoot its mark and not effect a safe landing.
I recommend the Government to accept the Amendment and approach the whole question in easy stages. When they have tried out their experiments and discussed them with the manufacturers, they can then, if they have not had the success which they think is necessary, come to the House again and discuss the problem of bringing in further legislation to meet the difficulty.
Mr. Grimston: I think it has already been made clear that this series of Amendments is designed to prevent this power from being used in the case of apparatus which merely interferes with other people's enjoyment and imposes what may be considerable hardship on people by their having to incur expense in meeting a notice. We concede to the Government that we will give them all they want with regard to safety. That we consider is absolutely necessary, and I do not think there can be any argument that any Measure that is required to see that safety signals are not interfered with must be brought in and compulsory powers used, if necessary.
But when it is a question of taking compulsory powers merely in order that certain people may enjoy their amusements the better, it is quite a different matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that all the selfishness is on one side? Suppose the reception by an expensive television set is being interfered with by a neighbour's electric iron; who is the more selfish, the person who says, "I do not see why I should have to pay 15s. to use my iron in order that the television may not be interfered with," or the owner of the television set who says, "I want my neighbour com-

689
pelled to spend 15s. on her iron in order that I may enjoy the use of my television set without interference"? Certainly the selfishness is not all on one side, so I dismiss that argument.
Of course, the fact of the matter is that the Postmaster-General has set about this problem—and there is a problem—in the easiest and the most dictatorial way. He is not giving himself time to see whether other methods will suffice—methods of persuasion, of attacking the problem at the manufacturers' end, and so on. This is really a typical example of the compulsion complex to settle every problem. Well, that is the method adopted by dictators. The Minister has referred to awkward people. Let us remember that awkward people have played a great part in preserving our liberties. Consider the awkward people in the House; people who are not liked by the Whips' Office—and I have been a Whip myself. It is very often the awkward chaps who get up below the Gangway here—
Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Is my hon. Friend in Order in making a personal attack on me, by referring to "awkward chaps" and pointing at me? I trust I have never been awkward at any time.
Mr. Grimston: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend for having inadvertently pointed at him. I was merely making a gesture indicating the position from which the awkward people very often rise. It is the awkward people who very often preserve the liberties of the House, which the Government are often anxious to take away. I have seen it with every Government—not only this one. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the few awkward people, let us remember that it is very often the awkward people to whom we owe a great deal.
I was not particularly impressed with the remarks of the Attorney-General, that although the Government are taking this power they will not use it; that his right hon. Friend is kindly and benevolent, and that he can give an assurance that no housewife will be harried as long as he is there. I am sure that is quite true. But the Attorney-General is not able to say that his right hon. Friend will be in possession of his post the day after tomorrow.
690
When the Government come to this Committee and ask for powers, saying, "Although they are very wide powers they will not be used, therefore give them to us," that is the sort of argument which ought always to be resisted by Parliament; it is an argument quite unworthy of the case.
The Government ought not to take what is the easy method of compulsion and a bludgeon to get everything they want. We give them all the powers required for safety; but let us have time to see if apparatus which causes interference only with amusement, cannot be dealt with by one of the methods which we have already discussed during this Committee stage. The problem has been there for some time, but the Postmaster-General should give more time to see if it cannot be dealt with, as far as amusement is concerned, without taking these enormous powers which impose burdens on the people and even involve, later on in the Bill, search of their homes.
9.45 p.m.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) suggested that we should proceed with this matter on the basis of easy payments, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) suggested we should proceed by easy stages. I am afraid that we cannot adopt the method suggested by the hon. and learned Member. It would be really impracticable to set up the enormous administrative machinery that would be required in order to ensure that everyone requiring an appliance at the cost of 1s. 6d., 2s. 6d., or perhaps 9s. 6d., obtained compensation. The suppressors involved in this matter are inexpensive and will, no doubt, become increasingly so. It would be quite impracticable to do that, and it would be quite without precedent. It would involve the establishment of an extremely complicated, burdensome and expensive administrative machine.
The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member is more attractive, that is, to proceed by easy stages, which is precisely what we are going to do. My right hon. Friend has already indicated that he is considering, with a view to putting down an Amendment on Report stage, the

691
possibility of taking specific powers, if there is the need under the Bill as drawn at present, to make regulations requiring manufacturers who deal with new apparatus to fit the necessary suppressors. As far as existing apparatus is concerned, it has already been bought and can only be dealt with, if it is to be dealt with at all, in the hands of the users. These powers will not be used in any case—and this must be perfectly clear to Members on both sides of the House—until the fact be that the apparatus is causing interference, can be stopped causing interference by the use of a simple technical device, and is not being stopped because the user neglects to take the simple step which would put an end to the interference.
I am quite ready to consider, if it meets, and to some extent it does meet, the view put forward by the other side, the possibility of trying to find some form of words which will ensure that, save in cases where safety of life or vital communication services are involved, a notice shall be served only where the apparatus is causing actual interference. It is not easy to find a form of words to do that, but we shall try to do it, because that is the intention when we put this Clause down and the intention in operating the Clause.
There is the possible case of someone who has commenced to set up, perhaps at considerable expense, some form of apparatus likely to cause severe interference to a wireless station. It might be possible to stop that by the serving of a notice before the expense is incurred, rather than to wait until the apparatus had been constructed and then serve the notice. That is a kind of case we had in mind when we used the word "likely" —and Members opposite have used it in their Amendment. We shall look at that again to see if we can confine the powers, where neither safety nor vital communication services are involved, to apparatus, the use of which is actually causing some degree of interference. We shall look at it and see if we can do something on Report stage.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Instead of saying "actually causing some degree of interference," should the Attorney-General not say "actually causing an undue degree of interference"?
The Attorney-General: I think we have that there already. I am not suggesting that we should depart from the standard of interference. I was merely saying that we would seek to provide some form of words to confine the use of the powers under Clause 11 (1) (b) to cases where actual interference was being caused, save where safety of life or vital communications were involved. I cannot give any undertaking that we shall, because I do not think it will be easy to find appropriate language, but we shall look at it and see if we can do it.
On the more general nature of the Amendment itself, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) suggested that all we were seeking to do in the Clause is to protect those who use wireless services for purposes of enjoyment. That is not so. The Amendment would go much further than excluding from any protection under this Bill those who use wireless merely for the purposes of enjoyment and the administrative services or communication services, which I enumerated when I addressed the Committee before, would be left entirely unprotected if the Committee agreed to this Amendment.
Even if it were merely a question of protecting the ordinary wireless user, as countless millions of people derive great pleasure and benefit from this wonderful new invention, I should still be prepared to defend this Clause as it stands. The truth of it is—and I do not think that the Committee can get away from it—in practice it is only the selfish person who needs to fear the operation of this Clause.
If I may, I should like to pursue the case put by the hon. Gentleman, who referred to some humble, modest housewife whose flat iron was causing interference to the wealthy owner of an expensive television set next door. The answer to that, of course, is that in the first instance that would probably not be a case of undue interference at all and no Postmaster-General in his senses—and one can be assured that any Postmaster-General representing His Majesty's present advisers will always be in that position—would serve a notice in such a case.
Sir I. Fraser: On that technical point I should like to ask the Attorney-General, is it not a fact that in this connection

693
the word "undue" must mean a measure of interference? If the iron next door so interferes with television that the owner will not be able to see the television programme, is not that undue interference?
The Attorney-General: No. I think the word "undue" means that regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case. If the position is that there is one piece of apparatus which is being otherwise lawfully used but is causing interference only to one other piece of apparatus, it is most doubtful whether a Postmaster-General would think it a proper case for serving a notice at all, assuming that the question were one merely of amenity and comfort and not of vital communication services. I do not think that the Postmaster-General contemplates using this Clause merely to protect the user of one piece of apparatus by imposing obligations on the user of another piece of apparatus.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: If that is the limited intention of this Clause is it the intention of the Postmaster-General to insert words in the Clause with that meaning? That would mean a very great difference and certainly removes it a good deal from the Clause as drafted, both in the definition of "undue" by the Attorney-General and interference affecting one individual as against another.
The Attorney-General: That is a reasonable, proper and sensible interpretation of the words "undue interference" in the context in which one finds it. However, as one says so often, one must assume that the laws of this country will be administered with a certain degree of reasonableness by those who for the time are entrusted with their administration, and that those who are invested with these powers will not use them oppressively. It might well be that to use powers in the kind of case put by the hon. Gentle-opposite would be an oppressive use of them.
Suppose there is use oppressively in that sense. The remedy then which the humble, modest housewife and owner of the flat iron has is to go to the tribunal, and it is very simple, very expedient, very expeditious and very inexpensive. If the tribunal thinks that it is unreasonable in all the circumstances, and is unfair to the modest housewife, that she should be
694
asked to incur an expenditure of 1s. 6d. for a suppressor to the advantage of the wealthy owner of the television set next door, the tribunal will say so. It is a sensible tribunal and is composed of ordinary, rational beings who are not likely to agree to the imposition of unjust burdens upon the modest housewife or to the use of the powers of the Postmaster-General in an oppressive way.
The reasonable and unselfish person is amply protected by the tribunal even if he or she is not sufficiently protected by the fact that normally our laws are administered in a reasonable way by those whose duty it is to administer them. If they are not, the tribunal is there to give directions to the Postmaster-General with full power and control over him in the matter to see that he does not exercise his powers in an oppressive or unreasonable way. So the reasonable person will go to the reasonable tribunal and get a reasonable decision in regard to the matter in all the circumstances of the case.
We do think that it is necessary to deal with the selfish person who is determined to go on in the use of apparatus which causes an undue amount of interference to other people who are entitled to get the maximum benefit from this great new amenity which science has given to the people of this and other countries, so we cannot, I am afraid, agree to the Amendment.
Mr. H. Strauss Mr. H. Strauss rose—
The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will agree to make progress.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Amendment is perhaps the most important Amendment that we have had under discussion. I think I am entitled to make some observations upon what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. He has made clear to the Committee that, whatever may be said for the Clause, it does not really carry out the intentions of the Government. In his first speech he made an error with regard to the Clause, and it was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says frankly that the Government will try to find a form of words which will bring the Clause into line with what the view expressed in the first speech he made; that is to say that action will only be taken if apparatus

695
has been causing undue interference. I recognise that that is a drafting improvement which brings the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman into line with the Bill.
The Attorney-General: The other way round, I think.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Or the Bill into line with the speech, whichever way the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes. The improvement does not go far to meet the points which we raised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has engaged in some very skilful pleading to try to meet the points, but his arguments were not at all convincing. He says that notices will be served only upon a very few selfish people, at little cost to them, to cure undue interference. I am not in the least convinced that little cost will be involved, and we have yet to hear what will be the position of the individual who cannot afford that little cost.
10.0 p.m.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, when trying to defend the words in Subsection (1, b), that they were inserted in that form in order to stop in advance, perhaps, the erection of a most expensive piece of machinery. Does he really say that this notice will only be served where little cost will be involved to comply with it? If that were so, perhaps one's view would be different. He then tries to say that this Clause will not be used to harass one housewife for the benefit of one television owner, but I am
sure he will agree that it could be so used. I dissent entirely from the interpretation he sought to put on the word "undue." I do not believe that it could possibly be held in the courts to have that very extensive operation—to take into account all the circumstances in the case.
The Attorney-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that there should be no legal powers to deal with undue interference?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was not suggesting anything of the sort, but I am suggesting that the interpretation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly wrong when we look back to Clause 10 and find similar words. We are told that at any rate the housewife can go to the Tribunal. It would be more consoling to be told that the Tribunal could go to the housewife and see the electric iron in its situation. That is not the sort of argument which can justify the Postmaster-General's having these most extensive powers. We would grant these powers willingly where any question of human safety is involved, but we think that the granting of these powers in all the circumstances is totally unnecessary and a great interference with the liberty and freedom of the individual, and we shall support this in the Division Lobby.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes. 188; Noes, 67.

Division No. 9.]

AYES

[10.3 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Collins, V. J.

Gibson, C. W

Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

Colman, Miss G. M

Gilzean, A.

Attewell, H. C.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Austin, H. Lewis

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Grey, C. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Grierson, E.

Ayles, W. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Deer, G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Baird, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Balfour, A.

Delargy, H. J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Barton, C.

Diamond J.

Gunter, R. J.

Battley, J. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Guy, W. H.

Bechervaise, A E

Donovan, T.

Haire, John E (Wycombe)

Benson, G

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hale, Leslie

Blyton, W. R

Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

Boardman, H.

Dumpleton, C. W

Hardy, E. A.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford>

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Hobson, C. R.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Evans S. N. (Wednesbury)

Holman, P.

Burden, T, W.

Fernyhough, E.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Carmichael, James

Foot, M. M

Hoy, J.

Champion, A. J

Forman, J. C.

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

Cobb, F. A.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Collick, P.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)

Collindridge, F

Gibbins, J.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Steele, T.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

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

Stross, Dr. B.

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

Orbach, M.

Summerskill, Dr Edith

Janner, B.

Pagel, R. T.

Sylvester, G. O.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Symonds, A. L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Keenan, W.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Kenyon, C.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Kinley, J.

Pearson, A.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Peart, T. F.

Thurtle, Ernes

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Perrins, W.

Tiffany, S.

Levy, B. W.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Timmons, J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Titterington, M. P.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Randall, H. E.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.

Longden, F.

Ranger, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Lyne, A. W.

Rankin, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

McAdam, W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

McEntee, V. La T.

Rhodes, H.

Viant, S. P.

Mack, J. D.

Richards, R.

Walker, G. H.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

McLeavy, F.

Robens, A.

Warbey, W. N.

MacPherson, M. (Stirling)

Ross, William (Kilmarnook)

Watkins, T. E.

Macpherson, T (Romford)

Royle, C.

Weitzman, D.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Sargood, R.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Segal, Dr. S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Sharp, Granville

Wilkins, W. A.

Messer, F.

Shawcross, Rt Hn Sir H (St. Helens)

Willis, E.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Shurmer, P.

Wills, Mrs E. A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Woods, G. S.

Moody, A. S.

Simmons, C. J.

Yates, V. F.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Skeffington, A. M.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Morley, R.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Zilliacus, K.

Moyle, A.

Skinnard, F. W.

Murray J. D.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Nally, W.

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

Mr. Popplewell and

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Snow, J. W.

Mr. Richard Adams

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

Astor, Hon M.

Grimston, R. V.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.

Ropner, Col L.

Bower, N.

Hollis, M. C.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W)

Smithers, Sir W.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.

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

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Studholme, H. G.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Sutcliffe, H

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirrat)

Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)

Clarke, Col. R. S

Low, A. R. W.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

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

McCallum, Maj. D.

Turton, R. H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

McFarlane, C. S.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Darling. Sir W. Y.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Davidson, Viscountess

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Digby, S. W.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

York, C.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)

Drayson, G. B.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Drewe, C.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Odey, G. W.

Major Conant and

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Colonel Wheatley

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

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "heard," to insert:
'either in person or by counsel or solicitor.
We put down this Amendment because we think there may be a number of people who are nervous and hardly competent to make their own case before the Tribunal. We think that such people should have the advantage of having their case presented for them by counsel or solicitor. The hour is getting late
698
and I do not wish to labour the point beyond saying that we think this provision should be included in the Bill.
The Attorney-General: Paragraph 6 of the Schedule enables the Tribunal
"with the approval of the Lord Chancellor …the Lord President of the Court of Session …"
or
"the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland."
to make rules determining the procedure before the Tribunal. One of the matters

699
that should be dealt with, and which is intended should be dealt with, under those rules is the question of representation of the parties. What is contemplated is that the parties should have the right to appeal by a solicitor or counsel if they wish, but not that there should be an exclusive right of audience. It may be that in a particular case where technical questions were involved, for instance, they would want to be represented by an engineer, and we think that is right; but there will certainly be provision for professional representation.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the learned Attorney-General. I think his explanation meets our point. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, to leave out "the Postmaster-General or."
This Amendment and those to lines 37 and 38 go together. They are designed to meet a point raised at an earlier stage and which I promised to consider. During the earlier Debate the feeling was expressed that where the Appeal Tribunal had ordered the Postmaster-General to revoke a notice, it would be wrong for the Postmaster-General, by reason of the proviso to Clause 11 (4), to be able to issue at a later date, by virtue of the same facts, a fresh notice prohibiting the use of the same apparatus. These Amendments are designed to remedy that position.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the Postmaster-General. His explanation appears to meet our point that, where the Postmaster-General has issued a notice which has been revoked by the Tribunal, he shall not immediately issue another one, which hitherto appeared possible under the proviso he has referred to. I take it that, following upon his Amendments, where the Postmaster-General considers there has been a relevant change and issues another notice, the further notice will again come under the procedure of review by the Tribunal.
Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 37, leave out from "under," to "subsection," in line 38.—[Mr. Paling.]
Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in line 38, at the end, to insert:
"and shall not, where the Postmaster-General is of opinion that there has been a relevant change in the circumstances, prevent the Postmaster-General from giving a further notice under Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of this Section."
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: What has the Postmaster-General in mind in the term "relevant circumstances"? Does he, for instance, mean a change in the occupation of the property? We have had some father strange definitions by the Attorney-General of the word "undue," and it would help the Committee if they knew what the Postmaster-General meant by "relevant circumstances."
Mr. Wilfred Paling: A notice is served under certain conditions, but the conditions might have been altered and after a time there might be interference again from the same apparatus. In those circumstances, there would be different conditions from those on which notice was given on the first occasion. Notice could be given again in those circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, at the end, to add:
"and, unless the parties otherwise agree, in the same county."
The Committee will see that this Subsection refers to the fact that the Tribunal
"shall sit in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland."
We think that that should be amplified. In an Amendment we discussed recently, the Attorney-General made some play to the effect that it was extremely easy for the housewife to put her case to the Tribunal. We suggest it would not be easy if the Tribunal were to sit 200 or 300 miles away from where she lived, and we have put down this Amendment in order that the Tribunal shall sit in a place where it is convenient for her to attend.
Mr. Paling: I agree that it is rather difficult to ask a person to travel a long way on this business—
Mr. Grimston: And very expensive.
Mr. Paling: —and very expensive, and it is not our intention that she should do so. We are not quite sure that we could alter the provision so that the Tribunal would sit in the same county, but it is my intention to put in words something like this:
"unless the parties otherwise agree, shall sit in some place which, in the judgment of the Tribunal, is reasonably near to the place where the apparatus was, as aforesaid."
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been good enough to say what he proposes to do We will look at it between now and the Report stage and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, to leave out "or permits."
The Committee will see that the Subsection says:
"Any person who, knowing that a notice of the Postmaster-General under this section is in force with respect to any apparatus, uses that apparatus, or causes or permits it to be used, in contravention of the notice, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Those words "or permits" appear superfluous. On the Second Reading an hon. Member opposite said that someone might visit him and allow him to turn on the wireless knowing that a notice was in force. Obviously it is not intended that that should be an offence. The case of an officer of a company or corporation, seems to be covered by Clause 13, (2). We cannot see any reason why the words, "or permits," should not be deleted from this Subsection in order to cover points raised by hon. Members from all parts of the House on Second Reading.
The Attorney-General: I think that there has been a misunderstanding of the legal significance of the word "permits" in this context. If I stand by and allow someone to play a discordant record on an electrically defective gramophone I no more "permit" that defective apparatus to be used, than I could be said to have "permitted" the hon. Gentleman to have made the speech which we have just heard. The word "permit," in law at all events, connotes the legal right to prohibit or forbid. One cannot be said to permit a thing unless one is entitled to stop that thing from being done. There is a good deal
702
of authority on this point. There was a case in 1941 in which the matter was considered, and the word was considered, and it was laid down in the most specific terms. One can start from the proposition that this Clause would have no application except for the cases in which somebody who could stop the use of apparatus failed to do so and permitted it to be used.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Clause 13 so far as companies are concerned. But they are not the only case. There is the case of the use of the flat iron or wireless belonging to one person by another person—a servant or an individual in the house, etc. That use could be prevented by the occupier of the house or the owner of the apparatus. It is in that case that the Clause would come into operation. It certainly could not operate at all in the kind of case contemplated during the Second Reading Debate, in which a person merely stood by and watched or listened to the use of apparatus which he had no power to control. In these circumstances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not necessary to make this Amendment.
Mr. Turton: I hope that my hon. Friend takes a different line. I should have thought that nothing was more undesirable than to put upon a tenant the onus of looking after what a sub-tenant in the house is using in the way of electric appliances. Surely the Attorney-General has everything he wants in the words "causes or uses"? What is to happen in a maisonnette when the lady upstairs has a defective electric iron and does not want to pay the extra 30s. The Attorney-General seeks to impose that not only she can be chased and harried by him but also her tenant below. It is unnecessary to have these words in the Clause. There is abundant power in this Bill to annoy people, and I hope that we adhere to this Amendment to have these words deleted.
The Attorney-General: May I take the first opportunity which I have to apologise to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and at the same time to congratulate him on the fact that I mistook him for the hon. Baronet the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who spoke immediately following him on a previous occasion?

703
In the observations which I made about this matter, I did not mention the case of a sub-tenant. I do not think that this provision would apply. I do not think that the landlord would have any right to intervene in the case of the use of apparatus by a sub-tenant. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a person to whom the Clause really has no application. I dealt with the case of a person who is perhaps the owner of some apparatus or who has the right to control it for some reason or other. If that person permits that apparatus to be used illegally, it seems not improper that he should be legally liable for the offence he has committed.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I will put to the Attorney-General the case of a company owning a large block of modern flats which are completely equipped with electrical apparatus—electric irons, refrigerators and everything of that kind which is normal in a modern household. These are owned by the company which owns the block, but they have no right of interference with them as the liability for maintenance of the apparatus is upon the tenants or lessees of the flats themselves, the users of the apparatus. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is surely not seeking to say that it would be reasonable in that case that the owners, who would be the persons who would legally permit the offence to be committed, are the people who should be liable to the penalties imposed by this Clause?
The Attorney-General: I do not think, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that that would be a case where it could properly be said that the company was permitting. The hon. Gentleman postulated that the company would have no right to interfere with the user of refrigerators, and so on. If the company has no right to interfere, it cannot be said to be permitting the use. That has been laid down in case after case. One can only permit a thing if one is entitled in law to forbid it.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. H. Strauss: I wish to call the Attorney-General's attention to two points
704
which I hope he will look into further. In dealing with the question of "undue interference" in line 16, page 10, he seemed to imply that the Tribunal could reasonably consider the convenience or hardship to persons. I am convinced that if he looks at the words again he will see that the words:
"… likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy,"
imply an objective test and exclude such considerations. I think he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was making a perfectly true point when he said that, if one iron made a television apparatus wholly ineffective, it would come within the words, whatever the hardship might be to the owner of the apparatus and whatever the number of apparatus interfered with.
In dealing with my point about possible payment to the person whose apparatus has to be altered if it is not to be discontinued, he said that that would be impracticable and involve an elaborate system of compensation. I would ask him and the Government to consider this more limited point. Could not the Tribunal make it a condition of making an order for the alteration of apparatus that some contribution should be made to the person owning the apparatus? The right hon. and learned Gentleman could enormously increase the possibility of fair action and the sort of action he wanted from the Tribunal if it were within the power of the Tribunal to make their order dependent on some payment.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman means some compensation by the person whose apparatus has been interfered with.
Mr. H. Strauss: Either that, or the Government should re-constitute the Bill in some way that will secure that some payment is made. It may be from other sources. The point is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress on how much possibility there was of this Tribunal doing substantial justice and avoiding hardship. Unless he makes some provision of that sort, the Tribunal will not have the sort of power which
he indicated that he would like it to have.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Penalty for deliberate interference.)
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 23.
This Clause deals with deliberate interference, and Subsection (2) says:
"This Section shall apply whether or not the apparatus in question is wireless telegraphy apparatus…"
and it goes on in these odd words:
"…whether or not any notice under the last preceding section has been given with respect to the apparatus, or, if given, has been varied or revoked."
I would suggest to the Attorney-General that those words are both unnecessary and undesirable. There might yet be a case where an iron that had been "acquitted" of undue interference under Clause 10 could yet be "charged" with "deliberate interference" under Clause 12. The words are undesirable, because they give a hint that the Postmaster-General, having had a rather unsuccessful bout with the tribunal in the preceding Clause, is invited to go under the Clause. For all these reasons, and to tidy up the Measure, I hope he will cut out these words.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Hobson: I think that in a case of deliberate interference—and that is what this Clause specially deals with—we should not be prepared to tolerate people not only causing a nuisance, but in many cases also endangering lives. The only reason these words are put in is to make it abundantly clear that ordinary enforcement procedure shall not be enforced in these circumstances. It is put in for that reason and for that reason only.
Mr. Turton: I appeal from the Postmaster-General, whose great knowledge of the Post Office has always impressed me, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has a much greater knowledge of the law. Surely when we use words to make something "abundantly clear," it usually has the reverse effect. Although the cutting out of these words makes it "abunddantly clear" to the Assistant Postmaster-General, I believe the Amendment should also have a sufficient abundance of clarity for the right hon. and learned
706
Gentleman the Attorney-General, who sits next to him, I hope he will look at it.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Penalties and legal proceedings.)
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, at the end, to insert:
"(b) shall, if the offence is under Part II of this Act and consists in the use of apparatus in contravention of a notice of the Postmaster General under section eleven of this Act, not being apparatus the use of which is likely to cause undue interference with any wireless telegraphy used for the purposes of any safety of life service or any purpose on which the safety of any person or of any vessel, aircraft or vehicle may depend, be liable on summary conviction, in the case of the first such offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and, in the case of any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
On Second Reading there was a great deal of criticism of what were stated to be heavy penalties. We have read the Debate and noted what has been said, and have come to the conclusion that we can well reduce them in this instance. Where there was a £100 fine, it is now £50 for the second or subsequent offence; and there is a maximum of £10 for a first offence. In the case of imprisonment, which was also included previously for this kind of offence, we have taken that out altogether, limiting the penalty to these fines.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the second "Act," to insert "which is in force."
The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman meets the points of criticism raised on Second Reading that the penalties for minor infringements were far too severe. There is, however, one point which arises on which I should like some explanation. There is no offence created during the time when an appeal is being made against a notice and has not yet been heard. The wording does not seem to make that quite clear. The object of this Amendment to the Amendment is to make it clear that this applies while a notice is in force. I should like to know whether this is clear in the present wording or whether it is necessary to add these further words.
The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I think the Amendment to the Amendment is not necessary, because under Clause 11 (7) the use of apparatus in contravention of a notice which has not yet come into operation or ceased to be in operation—"in force" are the words the hon. Gentleman has in his Amendment—would not be an offence at all. I do not think that the introduction of these words is necessary.
Mr. Grimston: Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will have a look at this again. In view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 45, leave out "or apparatus."
I move this Amendment, though it may not be the correct method of bringing about what we want to achieve. It appears that on conviction a person may be deemed to commit a separate offence in respect of every day the offence continues. If that is the case, even under these revised and smaller sums, the penalties may amount to a large sum. While it is reasonable if a serious offence is being committed at a station, or something of that sort, it is absurd that this should be a continuing offence in the case of a minor matter like a domestic appliance. We therefore move to delete the words "or apparatus," in order to confine a continuing offence to more important matters connected with wireless stations, and so on.
The Attorney-General: The Subsection is intended to meet a technical situation to cover a possible loophole which would otherwise exist in the law and enable a person convicted once who continued to use the apparatus, in breach of the provisions of the Act, to avoid any penal liability attaching to persons who were continuing the same offence daily but with breaks in between. If a person was convicted of an offence yesterday and then commits exactly the same offence today, he can be prosecuted for today's offence although he has been convicted of the same offence yesterday. That is, I think, a fairly clear proposition.
708
If however today's offence is merely a continuation of yesterday's without any break in between, a fresh prosecution for today's offence might be met with the plea of autrefois convict. It is not the intention of the Clause as it stands, and I am sure it would not be the intention of the hon. Gentleman who put down the Amendment, that the payment of a fine, perhaps a very small fine, in respect of the first offence in connection with the user of any particular apparatus, should then entitle the user of that apparatus to go on using it in exactly the same state immune from any further prosecution for the rest of the lifetime of the apparatus.
That would manifestly be absurd. You do not buy immunity from the law; you do not buy immunity from prosecution for a continuing offence merely by paying a small fine in the first instance. Liability cannot be dispensed with in that way. If the Amendment were accepted, it would prevent the Subsection applying either in the case of an offence under Part I of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, in respect of the regulation of wireless telegraphy, or under Part II in respect of interference. The Subsection is required for both these types of offence where you have an offence, without any break in between, which is continuing after a first conviction and in connection with which it is necessary to bring subsequent proceedings.
Mr. Grimston: I think I understand the learned Attorney-General's point. When he speaks about a continuing offence, does he mean that actually the apparatus has to be used without intermission at all? If so, it is improbable that, in the case of a flat iron, having dealt with it one day the housewife is going to leave it switched on all through the night and on through the next day. Is any new offence involved?
The Attorney-General: No, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is not likely that this Subsection would apply to the flat iron. Really, this deals rather with what is industrial apparatus, or permanent plant; that kind of apparatus which is in use permanently—electric pumps, and that kind of thing—and there it might be difficult to prosecute if one did not have this provision.
Captain Crookshank: But could the right hon. And learned Gentleman find

709
some words to distinguish between the two?
The Attorney-General: I do not think it is really necessary. The flat iron, of which we have heard so much, is covered, and the prosecution can be made again and again if the use continues, and the action constitutes a breach of the Act. What we want to deal with is where the apparatus is in more or less continuous use, and there has been no break between the date on which there has been one prosecution and conviction, and the date of the commission of the subsequent offence.
Mr. Turton: If the flat iron is used from Sunday to Saturday, one can have seven charges; in cases where the Ministry of Food prosecutes, they normally get as many charges as possible before the court, and I think that that is an undesirable habit. Will the Attorney-General try to get this wording put right so that when one uses the flat iron from Monday to Sunday, one is said to have committed one offence, and not seven?
The Attorney-General: It is not the practice, at least of any Department of which I have knowledge or experience, to bring a series of cases, unless it is tried to prove that there is a systematic evasion of the law; but, if the humble housewife received seven separate summonses, I think one may safely say that the magistrates would undoubtedly order the prosecution to pay the costs.
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Before we depart from this Clause, may I raise a question about Subsection (4)? It says that:
"No criminal proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England, Wales or Northern Ireland except with the consent of the Postmaster-General."
What is the position in relation to the institution of proceedings by the Postmaster-General in Scotland? I think that that point was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) during the Second Reading Debate, but, on that occasion, the Minister did not reply, and I see none of the Scottish Law Officers here tonight. Perhaps we could have some guidance on the position of Scotland under the Subsection.
The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General is going to stick to his last, which is the law of England.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is not the Attorney-General going to make some more adequate reply?
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

PRIZE MONEY
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the payment, and the distribution or application, of any prize money granted by His Majesty out of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war, or other provision as to prize, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of unclaimed sums in the custody of prize courts."—[Mr. Dugdale.]
10.45 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of Order. We are now being asked to consider a Motion of which we have no knowledge and which has no reference to anything that has been considered by the House. Do you rule, Mr. Bowles, that we consider this Motion, or shall I be in Order in moving the Adjournment of the Committee?
The Deputy-Chairman: The Motion has been on the Order Paper for some time.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If it is on the Order Paper, then surely it must have reference to something of which this Committee has knowledge? We have no knowledge of anything to which it refers.
The Deputy-Chairman: This is a Committee of Ways and Means, and any question of raising money starts here.
Commander Noble: May I submit that this Motion refers to a new Clause which has not been taken in Committee?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: As this Motion has apparently nothing to do with anything in the Prize Bill, is it in Order, in the course of our discussion, to make

711
reference to a new Clause which happens to appear on the Order Paper but which the House has not had an opportunity as yet to consider?
The Deputy-Chairman: What the Committee is now asked to do by the Government is to put certain funds into the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it would be out of Order to refer to any particular Clause of the Bill.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: You will notice, Mr. Bowles, that in this Motion the word "unclaimed" occurs. Is it to be taken that we have knowledge of that of which the new Clause speaks?
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order but a question which might be addressed to the Government.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It will be very difficult for us to speak on this Motion without knowing how you are going to rule.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait until I do rule. I cannot answer a hypothetical question of that kind.
The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am sorry at this hour to inflict a little more work on Members. The object of this Motion is to see that unclaimed and non-condemnable goods that are remaining in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account, or in the Colonial Prize Court, shall be paid into the Exchequer. After the last war the Exchequer had to claim each individual item. Every item that was non-condemnable had to be claimed by them first before they could take it and this process went on for a period of many years and involved a large number of people in a considerable amount of work. We want to shorten that process.
The situation is that there are a number of small parcels and goods in ships which have been captured. Such parcels belong to neutrals or indeed to our own countrymen or in certain cases, maybe, to the ex-enemy. They are small parcels and they are not in any case prizes. They are goods which are placed in the ship for carriage and which are not part of prize.
712
They would therefore never have become either droits of the Admiralty or droits of the Crown and there is no question of their distribution as droits of the Crown in the form of prize money.
It took 12 years after the last war for the Treasury to lay claim to each individual parcel. May I illustrate the difficulty by reference to one court, the London Court. There are some 912 writs referring to some 800 or more individual items, some of which are of only a few shillings. The Treasury would have to go through the process of claiming each one of these separately.
What we want to do is to see that after a certain time has elapsed all these goods shall be paid to the Treasury. The total amount is equivalent to approximately £7,000 and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that the Treasury are willing, if this Motion is accepted, to consider on its merits any claim that may be subsequently put forward by or on behalf of any claimant who can adequately show good reason for the claim not having been presented within the prescribed time. I think in that way we can be quite certain that justice will be done to any claimant even if he has not put in his claim by the prescribed time. I commend this to the House because it will save a considerable amount of work. It will do justice and it will avoid much of the trouble that we had after the last war. I hope the House will accept the Motion.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that in moving this Motion he is really undertaking a task normally undertaken by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and that the sole beneficiary of this Motion, if passed, will be the Treasury. He has told us that the total involved is about £7,000 and of the difficulty after the First World War of collecting these unclaimed amounts and paying them into the Exchequer. I gather that the sole purpose of this Motion is to enable these sums, now in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account, to be taken out of that Account and paid into the Treasury.
First of all, we should be interested to know why a Resolution is necessary for that purpose, having in mind the fact that I do not think that we had a similar

713
Resolution for the payment out of the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account into the Royal Naval Prize Fund or the R.A.F. Prize Fund. Why, if we did not have a Resolution for that, do we require to have a Resolution for this particular purpose to facilitate payment into the Exchequer?
I would ask the Committee to pay attention to the wording of this Motion. It says:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the payment, and the distribution or application, of any prize money granted by His Majesty out of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war … it is expedient to authorise the payment.…"
But the hon. Gentleman has not indicated in the least in his speech that it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of these unpaid sums in order to facilitate the distribution of prize money. He has made it clear that the contrary is the case; that there is no question of the distribution of this money as droits of the Crown or prize money. Therefore I would suggest to the Committee, and to the hon. Gentleman, that passing this Motion is entirely contradictory because the Motion says, on the one hand, it is for the purpose of distributing that prize money, and on the other, that to distribute it we pay it into the Exchequer and none of it goes to the Prize Fund.
I should have thought that this was the most fantastic Motion ever put before a Committee of Ways and Means even at this late hour, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to take it away and think again. If there is only £7,000 involved, why not pay it into the Royal Naval Prize Fund or the R.A.F. Prize Fund. Why put it into the Exchequer, and what is the Exchequer going to do with it? Is it to be placed to meet the loss on some nationalised industry? If so, it will not go far for that purpose. As the total Prize Fund is a small amount this time, why not add this amount to it and make it a little larger? If that is done, I hope it will be found possible by the Government to meet the proper and just claims of naval ratings who served in merchant ships during the war, who are now excluded from benefit; and also commodores of convoys. It might provide some prize money for them without reducing the amount payable to other
714
naval ratings and officers under the scheme proposed.
There surely cannot be any grounds whatsoever for taking money now in the Prize Account. Although the hon. Gentleman says it is not droits of the Crown or the Admiralty, the money is in the Prize Account, and there can be no justification for taking it out and paying it straight over to the Exchequer. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to think again, and I hope he will take the Motion away tonight. I do not think there is any particular need to pass it tonight, and I hope he will be able to tell us later that he has been able to prevail on the Treasury to add to the existing fund available for distribution as prize money this small sum of £7,000.
11.0 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must admit that probably like many members in this Committee I was very surprised when the Leader of the House said that this Motion would be taken tonight. We on this side of the House are at a disadvantage because a Motion in wide terms like this means that we have to rely on what the Government say about it. In the past we have found them a most creditable source of information, and I would thank them tonight for what they have said.
What the Government are asking the Committee to do is to say that all unclaimed sums shall pass into the Exchequer, but they have left out of the Motion how they are going to define the word "unclaimed." As we know the word, it has a definite meaning, but it may be that the House is going to be faced with a different interpretation before this Bill is passed. We are going to be faced with the position that any sum which may accrue to the Supreme Court at the end of six months from a time the Admiralty determine, will go to the Exchequer, instead of being asked to pass to the Exchequer whatever minor sums—and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned £7,000—which it would be impossible to distribute.
Apart from that, we may well be faced with the fact that a major claim might be outstanding at the time when, under the provisions to be made, prize money would cease to be payable. We are

715
asked to do something for which there is no authority. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he would like to pay this minor surplus into the Exchequer, but he has produced no argument to show that it is a minor surplus, or that he can control by this Motion how much the Exchequer will receive.
I suggest that, when we are dealing with a Prize Fund which has proved a disappointment to Members in all parts of the Committee, the last thing the Parliamentary Secretary ought to do is to add to their disappointment by trying to cut still further whatever sums may accrue to that account. I hope that before we endorse this Motion we shall get the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us exactly what he means by "unclaimed"; to elucidate what he means, when we are talking in terms of something further to come before the House, by "not within claims"; and above all, what he means by the further idea he has put forward that at the end of six months no further sums shall go into the Naval Prize Fund.
I shall be forced to vote against the Motion unless we can get a clear statement from the Financial Secretary that his only object is to ensure that non-condemnable, as apart from non-condemned, goods shall be transferred in this way to the Treasury. So long as this Motion permits money which should go to the Prize Fund being diverted to the Exchequer, I for one feel bound to vote against it.
Mr. Joynson - Hicks: Frankly, I am in a complete fog about this Motion and I rise to put certain points to the Government and ask for elucidation. I might say in passing that it is a matter for great regret that on consideration of a Motion such as this the Committee is apparently not to have any guidance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As I understand the matter which is now before the Committee, this is not to be a Financial Resolution to the Bill. Accordingly
cannot see any conceivable reason why it should be necessary for this Motion to be moved now. It appears to be something which is completely divorced from the Prize Bill, and merely relates to matters connected therewith. In fact, as
716
I interpret the Motion, three of the four lines are taken up by a description of the Prize Bill. For three lines the words, "any Prize Bill" could have been inserted, and the Motion would have read:
"That, for the purpose of any Prize Bill in the present Session it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of unclaimed sums in the custody of prize courts."
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary whether that is a correct interpretation of the phraseology of the Motion. My second question is how did this money get into the Prize Deposit Account, if it consists of the value of articles found on board ships captured which, as I understood the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to say, were not condemnable as prizes at all? One would have assumed that action would long since have been taken to return them to their proper owners who, I gathered from the hon. Gentleman, are probably Allies or neutral countries to whom ultimately the prize objects or their value should be returned. I think the Committee is entitled to clarification on that point.
What will happen to these moneys when they get into the Exchequer? If they are not prize moneys, and if they are moneys which represent objects which should be returnable to other countries, why should they be paid to the Exchequer, and what is the Exchequer going to do with them? These are matters which should be before the Committee. I think we ought to have a representative from the Treasury to explain the intention of the Treasury if and when the Committee thinks fit to pass a Motion in these terms.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: It must be clear to the Committee that there is a good deal more in this Motion that the Parliamentary Secretary led us to believe when he placed it before us. I would ask one question and make one suggestion to the hon. Gentleman which I think would lead to a satisfactory and amicable settlement of this matter. When the Bill was taken on Second Reading the Minister stressed to us that the amount for distribution at the conclusion of the war was very much less than at the end of the 1914–18 war, particularly as the Royal Air Force are now participating. The Minister has said tonight that an amount

717
of some £7,000 is all that is involved in this Motion. But £7,000 is a sum not to be sneezed at. It is the annual increment of seven hon. Members of this House—perhaps including some of those hon. Members who indulged in mocking laughter a few moments ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) was on his feet. The Minister has told us that he has an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this money in the Exchequer can be got out if satisfactory claims are forthcoming. But what will happen to such of that £7,000 as is no claimed?
It may well be that there will be individual claims which come within the ambit of the assurance the hon. Gentleman gave us a few minutes ago. Surely the thing to do with that money is to make it available for distribution among approved naval charities, such as the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust and many others which we can call to mind. That is going to be done in the case of the R.A.F.—the Financial Secretary confirmed that. Is this not a very reasonable and proper suggestion? Surely the Treasury is not just going to sit on this £7,000 or such balance as remains if these claims are not forthcoming. It is disappointing that there is not a Treasury representative here who can answer these points for us. I hope the hon. Gentleman, in replying to the Debate, will be kind enough to indicate his attitude towards that suggestion.
Mr. Dugdale: If I may say so, I think the Opposition are making rather heavy weather about this. The first question I have been asked, by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is: "Why should not the £7,000 or a sum approximating to that be paid into the Prize Fund?" The answer is that it is not prize, and that seems to me to be a very good answer. You can pay anything you like into the Prize Fund; you can pay the income of every hon. Member of this House into the Prize Fund, if you like, but it is not prize. In passing, the right hon. Gentleman made a somewhat facetious remark that it should be used to help to pay for the nationalised industries. So far as the coal industry is concerned, it is not going to be in need of such payment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to answer the serious questions I put to him. I asked him, first of all, what was the need for this Motion at all, and secondly, whether it was possible, even though this money may not be prize, to provide that this sum goes into the Prize Fund. Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer that one?
Mr. Dugdale: I have been on my feet only half a minute and I had just begun to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman and the other hon. Gentlemen. With regard to the first of the questions of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, as to why it is necessary to have this Motion, the reason is—because the money could not be paid into the Exchequer otherwise, which seems to me conclusive. I will deal with his second question when I come to deal with similar questions by other hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked what "unclaimed" meant. It means in fact that there is approximately £7,000 of uncondemnable moneys, which will not be condemnable as prize.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On a point of Order. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has just said, the Motion can have no relation whatever to the Prize Bill. I submit that the Motion is entirely out of Order,
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who has been raising some points, rather interfered with his own case, I thought, by saying he was in a fog. I think it is correct to say, so far as I can make out, that the hon. Gentleman still remains in a fog. The hon. Gentleman wants to know how the money got into the Prize Deposit Account. The explanation is very simple. All seized goods have to be put into the custody of the Admiralty and if they are sold, the proceeds must go into the Prize Deposit Account, whether the goods may be subsequently condemned or not. That is how the money got into the Prize Deposit Account. The next question he asked was; What will happen to the money when it goes into the Exchequer? I do not think that even my right hon. Friend

719
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can be expected to say what is going to happen to every item which goes into the Treasury from moment to moment.
I certainly cannot answer for this item any more than I can for other items. It will be spent, I imagine, in the excellent way the Government spend other moneys. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said there was a good deal more in this Motion than one might suppose. I do not know what grounds he had for saying that. I would say that there is no more in this Motion than it says. I think it is important, in view of the tremendous claim being made that hon. Members opposite are standing for justice for those who are likely to be in receipt of prize, that I should make it quite clear that where none of the money claimed, and were all of it eventually to be given by the Treasury to men entitled to prize, the total amount for each man would be 2¾d.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think, if I may say so with respect, that the Parliamentary Secretary has been less than honest with the Committee. He has given me an assurance—I was not allowed to challenge the point as the hon. Gentleman would not give way—that the only moneys to come under this Motion were those arising from goods which were non-condemnable. But if he will look at what his Government have done, he will see that exactly the reverse is what he is proposing to this Committee. That is, that within very certain and stipulated limits, any moneys which may accrue not from goods which are non-condemnable, but from any action which may not have been settled, shall accrue to the Exchequer. It seems to me a very wide difference between what he tried to assure me across the floor of the Committee tonight and what he himself is proposing by legislation. I hope this Committee will not allow that difference to pass before we have had a very clear explanation from the Government.
Let us come to another point. He says that these moneys are small. But how can the hon. Gentleman know that? He has put the figure at £7,000. I ask him how he has arrived at that figure. Is that merely because these goods will be non-condemnable or it is goods which may be condemnable or not? If it is the
720
goods which are only non-condemnable, how does the hon. Gentleman square it with what he is later on to propose, which is that it is only goods which are not condemned? I suggest to the Committee that if we accept what the Financial Secretary has said we are doing something which is neither justified by this Motion nor by what we know the Government are going to pursue later.
Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee in previous Debates have made it clear that they want to get the maximum amount of money into the Naval Prize Fund. That is still our object. It will be open to this Committee at a later stage to debate why particular sums have been contributed to the Naval Fund and the Royal Air Force Fund. But if we pass this Motion tonight we are simply saying that the Exchequer shall have the benefit of a large amount of money which would otherwise accrue to these funds. For these reasons I hope the Committee will not pass this Motion.
Commander Noble: There is only one point I wish to raise. I would ask for a categorical answer. If we pass this Motion tonight passing this money into the Exchequer, does that prevent a new Clause being moved during the Committee stage of the Bill asking that this money should go into the Royal Naval Prize Fund and the Royal Air Force Prize Fund?
Mr. Dugdale: I think that that is a point of Order and must, therefore, be decided by the Chair.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: If this is a point of Order, may I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Bowles?
The Deputy-Chairman: We are in a Committee of Ways and Means and I cannot give a Ruling binding on the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill. But I think the hon. and learned Gentleman can guess what the answer will be.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If this matter is raised on Ways and Means, its object is to pass money into the Exchequer, and nowhere else.
Commander Galbraith: I must ask where we stand on this matter; I do not think that this is the kind of thing we should pass from before we are absolutely clear about it.

721
The moneys in question are moneys which could not go into the Prize Fund. They are in the Deposit Account, but have never formed part of the Prize Fund. Is that the only money concerned? If we pass this Motion tonight, is there any chance of any other funds accruing from prize which, apart from this Motion would go into the Prize Fund? If there are any other moneys accruing at all, and the Financial Secretary can give us an assurance that all the money which can go into the Prize Fund has gone there, then that makes all the difference to my attitude. Are we just passing over money in the deposit account which cannot form prize, and does not form prize and, accordingly, we are not in any way dispossessing the Prize Fund? That is one point; secondly, can he assure us that nothing which would go to the Prize Fund is going to be gathered hereafter?
Mr. Dugdale: I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member that this only concerns money which cannot go into the Prize Fund.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I ask if the amount dealt with by this Motion is an ascertained figure, or can the Motion be used for future moneys?
Mr. Dugdale: It is only in respect of moneys there now, and is not in respect of future moneys.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask if a manuscript Amendment could be accepted dealing with money which cannot be paid into the Supreme Deposit Prize Account?
Mr. Dugdale: No, the matter is perfectly clear and I cannot accept a manuscript Amendment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The drafting of this Motion does not quite conform to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said quite categorically that it refers to unclaimed sums now in the custody of the Prize Court. Ought that not to be stated in the Motion which, as I read it, would attract any sums which came into Prize Courts in this country or the Colonies in the next few days, or, for that matter, the next few months? He says it applies only to money already there—about £7,000—and what we want to know is what happens to any further income of the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Ac-
722
count. I ask this because it conveys with clarity the meaning he put forward. Will he not accept a manuscript Amendment to insert the word "now" after "unclaimed sums"? It would then read:
"Unclaimed sums now in the custody of Prize Courts."
The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter for the Chair whether it be accepted or not, and I will not accept it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, Sir, that you will not accept such an Amendment: that necessarily falls immediately within your province and I accept your Ruling. I am forced back to this—that the hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that this Motion only applies to sums now in the Prize Court. I hope he will reflect on the terms of the Motion and bring it into line with what he himself has said about it.
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the payment, and the distribution or application, of any prize money granted by His Majesty out of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war, or other provision as to prize, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of unclaimed sums in the custody of prize courts."
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CATERING TRADE (CLEANLINESS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. R. J. Taylor).
11.27 p.m.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has caused some disquiet not only in the Staffordshire Potteries, which several hon. Members have the honour to represent in this House, but elsewhere in the country—namely, the use of cracked and chipped crockery, particularly in catering establishments and in its relation to the spread of infection and disease. The problem is not a new one, but a fresh significance has been given to it by a reply which was given by the Minister of Food on 5th July, to a question put to him by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner).

723
The hon. Member asked the Minister:
"Whether in the course of his campaign for cleanliness in catering establishments, he will deal with the problem of cracked crockery, which is not only unclean but spreads infection and disease."
The Minister replied:
"Infection can be spread by any crockery which has not been properly cleaned after use, and my medical advisers take the view that cracks do not materially enhance the danger. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that caterers should protect their customers by thorough cleansing and, where possible, sterilisation."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 5th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 10].
There are two points which arise from the reply of the Minister of Food which I want to comment upon—first, that caterers can protect customers by thoroughly cleansing and, where possible, by sterilising utensils; and, secondly, that the danger of infection is not increased by cracked pottery. The cleansing of pottery, as everyone knows, is very imperfectly done in many catering establishments where the service is very rushed. We have all seen this at sports meetings, dance halls and even at railway stations where meals are served quickly. The Minister has commented on the virtue of sterilisation by immersion in boiling water, but that is not a very practicable suggestion, because it cannot often be done. We can, I think, discount the value of that suggestion.
It is the second point—cracked and chipped pottery—with which I want to deal. For scores of years the pottery industry of North Staffordshire, which makes the finest pots in the world, has taken the view that the use of cracked, chipped and crazed ware is undesirable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) will be able to give us his views on this, and on the dangers of using cracked, chipped and crazed pottery, as he speaks as a bacteriologist and also as an adviser to the pottery industry on this aspect of the matter. I was very impressed by an article which appeared in the "Pottery Gazette," which summarises quite clearly the views of the industry as to the dangers which come from using cracked and chipped pottery, particularly in catering establishments. From it, we learn that certain experiments were made with damaged and undamaged ware. The experiment showed conclusively that the
724
danger of infection was infinitely less when undamaged pottery was used. After immersion for 15 seconds some germs of a non-virulent nature were left, but in the case of cracked pottery highly virulent germs were left which could spread diphtheria and other diseases.
This point of view is not merely confined to North Staffs, where we think we know a great deal about earthenware and china. It has also been discussed in America where it was said that on patriotic grounds the use of cracked pottery was not to be discouraged. That view was contested from many sides. In Australia there is a law which forbids the use of cracked and crazed ware in public catering establishments.
I hope we may have tonight some sort of refutation by the hon. Lady of what has been previously said, and if she disagrees with her right hon. Friend and his medical advisers I hope she will make that quite clear. If she cannot accept, with her own long knowledge, the evidence of the bacteriologists and the trade interests, and says that they and the people in America and Australia are on the wrong road, we shall weigh the merits of her case. If she does accept our point of view, we hope this will go out to the country because she will recognise that pottery supplies are limited, and that many hotels and catering establishments are inevitably driven to use second-rate and third-rate pieces of ware which they would like to replace.
11.39 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I think it must be accepted that contamination on a porous surface is very much more likely than on a glazed surface, and that contamination in a crack or fracture in pottery is more likely than on a highly glazed vitreous surface. From what little scientific and bacteriological work has been carried out, it appears that reasonable cleansing with boiling water of an unbroken surface will leave only a few streptococci albus, whereas on cracked crockery there can be found many other types of organism, particularly haemolytic streptococci. Even if that were not accepted by the hon. Lady, I think she would agree with me on first principles that it is more than desirable to avoid, on health as well as aesthetic grounds, the use of this ugly, damaged,

725
broken and obviously surgically dirty ware.
If that be accepted, we see that the problem is a simple one. It is that, even if you have not proved to the hilt that specific diseases are passed from one human being to another by the use of this cracked or chipped pottery, they can be. When we were students we used to hear terrifying stories about the dreadful diseases that could infect the lips from the use of dirty cups by infected people. We know that they were greatly exaggerated, and that that happened very rarely indeed. But trench mouth has been very prevalent during the war. There is more than one cause for thinking that it can arise from cracks or fractures in this type of pottery. That is the only point I want to make at this time, and I hope the hon. Lady will bear it in mind when she answers.
11.42 p.m.
Mr. Janner: This is a matter I raised some time ago. I was not satisfied with the answer I was given, nor, after I had submitted the evidence contained in an article by the doctor to whom my hon. Friend referred, with the reply given then. I hope the hon. Lady will realise that there is a considerable amount of serious doubt about this matter, as I have found since I raised the matter here. The doctor who examined the ware came to the conclusion that when the crockery was cracked the bacteria that were left after a test was made were harmful, and he gave a long account of the type of disease that could flow in consequence of the fact that the bacteria were left there. I put this article to the hon. Lady, and I was informed by her:
"Interesting as is Dr. Lightfoot's article, it does not seem to me to bear directly upon the question whether in the ordinary conditions of catering establishments cracked crockery does materially enhance the danger of infection. The question has been carefully investigated by the Central Public Health Laboratory of the Medical Research Council, and I have been advised that in their experience cracked and chipped cups yield no worse results than whole ones under the usual present day cleansing procedures in canteen and restaurant kitchens".
She then referred to the reply given to me when I raised the question.
The whole point of the reply was that if the proper cleansing takes place there
726
is a possibility of there being no greater danger in cracked crockery than otherwise. But the root of the matter is that you cannot rely on proper cleansing taking place, and consequently this matter ought to be dealt with in a different manner. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that in Australia the use of these cracked wares had been prohibited. That is also the case in many of the States of America. I think the same thing should apply here. I do not want to trespass on the territory of my hon. Friends who have spoken. I agree that we produce in this country the best pottery in the world. We ought to be encouraged to produce more and more for home use. In addition, there is the fact that plastic ware could be used—it is made in this country—until such time as full production can be obtained from the potteries themselves.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. John Lewis: One or two points have occurred to me, arising out of what has been said. I am rather inclined to the view that the hon. Gentlemen may be just as interested in the pottery industry in their constituencies as they are in the specific subject before the House tonight. The hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) is in a better position than I am to know something about the scientific side of the question, but is not the test that is carried out based mainly upon the mechanical action of washing? If two cups are inserted in boiling water for 15 seconds it is the heat that destroys the germs, and the germs in the cracks are also destroyed.
Dr. Stross: As I am asked the question, the answer is that the test referred to showed that they are not.
Mr. Lewis: I shall not accept the result of the test, and I hope the hon. Lady will uphold what I have said.
11.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I am grateful to the hon. Member who raised this question, because I think I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer tonight. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) who, I believe is a specialist in bacteriology, and I must agree that his statement was a moderate one. He indulged in no exaggeration. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Mem-

727
ber for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), who admits that his contribution is that of a layman, that he has not quoted all sorts of horrible diseases, and so frightened the public—
Mr. Janner: It is not my contribution.
Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that, but in a Debate of this kind there is the danger that a speech might be made which would make the public a little frightened. I agree that a great deal of china, including the china in the House of Commons, is rather cracked and chipped. That is because during the war it was not possible to replace it. I suppose every manager and every catering establishment would like to buy more crockery than is avilable at the moment. On aesthetic grounds alone we should like to see a change take place, but I must quote what I consider the best scientific advice that I can obtain.
It will be agreed that the work done in the laboratories of the Medical Research Council is carried out by men and women who have the highest qualifications, and who, in making a report, are, of course, impartial. They have experimented on china in various stages of delapidation and they say that the viable bacterial count on the "mouth area" of a cup may vary from a few organisms to many thousands. The number which are there are not determined by the cracks or chips, but by the lack of cleanliness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) has already said. They have examined deliberately infected cups and chipped and cracked cups.
Dr. Stross: Has the hon. Lady evidence of the technique used in the determination of the merits or demerits of different types of cups? Were the cups broken open?
Dr. Summerskill: I have made careful inquiries and I have been told that every kind of experiment has been made. Furthermore, the Ministry of Health have no record of any outbreak of serious illness which has been traced to the use of cracked crockery. My hon. Friend will agree that it is difficult to trace that. He has clearly stated that probably the organism which accounts for the most violent attacks of sore throat is a virulent streptococcus, I fully agree with
728
him, and the Ministry of Health bears that out. Apart from sore throat, which can be attributed to streptococci, I am told there has been no trace of any other outbreak.
My hon. Friend behind me said, "Boiling water does the trick." But he should realise that though there may be germs left in those cracks, there must be a heavy dose of organisms, of virulent streptococci before anyone can be infected. There may be one or two minor organisms sliding about, but I am sure he will agree with me that there must be a heavy dose before anyone can be infected. I own that on aesthetic grounds it is not nice to know that there are one or two organisms sliding about, but the fact is that they are not infective. When we hear of cases of food poisoning all over the country, they are not attributable to infected cups, spoons or forks; they are attributable to food which has been cooked and in which in the process of cooling organisms have multiplied rapidly and then infected the unfortunate persons who eat it. I must remind my hon. Friend it is quite impossible for organisms to multiply rapidly in that way in cracked cups.
Dr. Stross: I did not say that.
Dr. Summerskill: No, but I am just telling the hon. Member. Now we come to the real answer.
Cleanliness is the real protection. Whether utensils are made of pottery, plastic, china or any other material, and whether chipped or glazed, the only answer is to ensure that they are properly clean. They are I know, too often, in restaurants throughout the country, rinsed in water which is teeming with bacteria and wiped with cloths containing many thousands of living bacteria to the square inch. We are trying to educate the public to a better service. It will be possible, I think, for the bigger catering establishments to adopt the following practice: to give a preliminary wash in a first sink of water containing a detergent at a temperature of 110 to 115 degrees Farenheit, followed by a rinse in a second sink of water at a temperature of round about 175 degrees Farenheit for at least 30 seconds, and then allowed to drain dry without wiping. The hon. Member said that frequently crockery is left to drain dry. That is much better

729
than wiping it with a filthy cloth covered with bacteria. I hope that hon. Members' appetite for breakfast will not be affected. Crockery treated in this way, though not sterile, will have a low bacterial count and that is what we are trying to achieve.
Let me remind hon. Members that at present any individual can inform upon the manager of a catering establishment who is conducting the establishment in a dirty fashion. The Food and Drugs Act of 1938 does operate and operates very effectively, but only if an individual is public spirited enough to inform the local authority and ask for an inspector to go and inspect a certain establishment. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we feel so seriously about this matter that we are setting up a catering trade working party with the following terms of reference:
"To make recommendations to the Ministers of Food and Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the precautions considered practicable and desirable with a view to securing the observance of sanitary and cleanly conditions in the catering trade."
The members of this working party are the following. The Chairman will be Sir William Savage, M.D., D.Ph., a very well known authority on food hygiene. It includes a medical officer of health, a sanitary inspector, the medical adviser and secretary of the Central Council for Health Education, Dr. Sutherland, medical and administrative officers from the Health Departments and the Ministry of Food, directors of the British Tourist and Holiday Board and persons drawn from different sections of the catering trade. The first meeting of the working party will be held on 26th November. I
730
can assure the hon. Member who raised the subject that this working party was not brought into being after the Debate the other night. It was following a question in July.
The other point I want to make, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear it, is that supplies of pottery are improving. Production of cups, beakers and mugs increased from a monthly average of 9.1 million pieces in 1945 to one of 13.7 million pieces in the second quarter of this year, and I am sure that hon. Members representing pottery districts, of whom there seems to be a curious number in this Debate tonight, will be gratified to know that there has been this increase. The Board of Trade tells me that the caterers as a body are purchasing increasing supplies of crockery and are now taking more than ten per cent. of the supplies available for the home market.
I am sorry that my time is limited, but I hope that what I have said will be appreciated, namely that we are taking this matter seriously. But it is essential, at the moment, to increase exports. Therefore, it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to make some statutory provision to prohibit the use of chipped crockery. But I give this undertaking that we are doing everything in our power to stop the nuisance of which complaint has been made tonight.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Furniture Auctions
  Furniture Auctions
  Canadian Timber
  Canadian Timber
  Imports and Exports (Poland)
  Imports and Exports (Poland)
  Raw Cotton Purchases
  Raw Cotton Purchases
  Hand-Made Goods (Export)
  Hand-Made Goods (Export)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Supplies (Merchants)
  Domestic Supplies (Merchants)
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Collieries (Interim Income)
  Collieries (Interim Income)
PETROL SUPPLIES
  Consumption (Saving)
  Consumption (Saving)
  Commercial Travellers
  Commercial Travellers
  Standard Ration
  Standard Ration
  Hire Cars, Southwold
  Hire Cars, Southwold
EMPLOYMENT
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  Poles
  Poles
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Engineering Companies)
  Income Tax (Engineering Companies)
  Nationalised Industries (Exports)
  Nationalised Industries (Exports)
  Municipal Savings Agencies
  Municipal Savings Agencies
  Armed Forces, Kenya (Income Tax)
  Armed Forces, Kenya (Income Tax)
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Yugoslav Balances, United Kingdom
  Yugoslav Balances, United Kingdom
  ALIENS
  ALIENS
  POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, LONDON (BAN)
  POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, LONDON (BAN)
  PRIVATE DWELLINGS (INSPECTION POWERS)
  PRIVATE DWELLINGS (INSPECTION POWERS)
  POLICE OFFICERS (INTERVIEWS)
  POLICE OFFICERS (INTERVIEWS)
  PRISON CAMP, DRAYCOTT
  PRISON CAMP, DRAYCOTT
  I.R.A. PRISONERS
  I.R.A. PRISONERS
WATER SUPPLIES
  Rural Areas (Grants)
  Rural Areas (Grants)
  Gathering Grounds
  Gathering Grounds
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hampshire Executive Council (Accommodation)
  Hampshire Executive Council (Accommodation)
  Hospitals (Charges)
  Hospitals (Charges)
  Mental Nurses (Superannuation)
  Mental Nurses (Superannuation)
  Hospital, Tooting (Colour Bar)
  Hospital, Tooting (Colour Bar)
  Teeth Extraction
  Teeth Extraction
  Splinter-Proof Lenses
  Splinter-Proof Lenses
  Opticians (Payments)
  Opticians (Payments)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis (B.C.G. Vaccine)
  Tuberculosis (B.C.G. Vaccine)
  Factory, Gosforth (Noise Nuisance)
  Factory, Gosforth (Noise Nuisance)
HOUSING
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  Small Dwellings (Acquisition)
  Small Dwellings (Acquisition)
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' EXPENSES)
  SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOROUGH (MILLBROOK)
  SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOROUGH (MILLBROOK)
  LAPWINGS
  LAPWINGS
  ss. "DURBAN CASTLE" (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)
  ss. "DURBAN CASTLE" (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S FIAT
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S FIAT
  GERMANY (SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINALS, EXTRADITION)
  GERMANY (SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINALS, EXTRADITION)
  BRITISH PROPERTY, YUGOSLAVIA (EXPROPRIATION)
  BRITISH PROPERTY, YUGOSLAVIA (EXPROPRIATION)
  COLONIES (DOLLAR IMPORTS)
  COLONIES (DOLLAR IMPORTS)
  TRIPE (COLD STORAGE)
  TRIPE (COLD STORAGE)
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS DEPARTMENT
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS DEPARTMENT
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING
  4.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from the King, signed with his own hand. The Message is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) (Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1948, be made in the form of a draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Acts, 1937 to 1947, and so much of the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938, as enables a wage regulating authority to make provision for holidays and holiday remuneration for workers in agriculture in Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON DEATH PENALTY
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I think the House will wish to be informed of a Statement which is being made to-day in another place. On July 22 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated in another place that the question whether there are practical means of limiting the death penalty would be explored. The Government have given careful consideration to the question how this can best be done, and have decided
476
to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission for this purpose. The terms of reference and membership of the Royal Commission are still under consideration, and will be announced in due course. At this stage I can only say that the scope of the inquiry will be the questions whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, what alternative punishment can be substituted, and what are the changes in the law and the prison system involved by any alternative punishment. The Commission will be invited to take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may be of value in considering these questions.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS BILL. [H.L.]
4.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the responsibility for moving the Second Reading of this Bill falls upon my shoulders through the unfortunate illness of my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of noble Lords in all quarters of the House when I wish the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, a speedy and complete recovery. On this occasion I trust that I shall prove a not too unacceptable substitute.
This Bill is an important corollary to the measures which the Government have taken and are taking to close the gap between food availability and requirement by increased home production and overseas development. I need not dwell upon the gravity of the food situation, nor do I think that your Lordships would expect any apology from me for submitting proposals primarily designed to increase food availability by the elimination of loss and damage attributable to rats, mice, insects and mites. It is a sombre thought that, according to the best scientific evidence available to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the loss in cereals, pulses and oilseeds alone, attributable to pests, amounts to not less than 10 per cent. of the production for the entire world. In a recent debate the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who always speaks so

477
knowledgeably upon these subjects, put the matter in a different way when he referred to an estimate that every year, between harvest and consumption, there is destroyed by mites, pests, and rodents, grain equivalent to all the food passing into international trade.
Our own loss of food of all kinds caused by the species of pests coming within the ambit of this Bill, is not, on present information, capable of precise estimate, but must be thought of in terms of upwards of 2,000,000 tons annually. That is a prodigious and staggering figure. At the outbreak of the last war there were neither powers nor organisations adequate for the purpose of preventing wastage vhich had been tolerated in the past but which, under war conditions, became insupportable. It is true that there was on the Statute Book the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, but no authority existed for the control of destructive insects and mites in foodstuffs. The Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act was of little avail, and the local authorities in whom the powers and duties were vested, allowed it to fall into comparative disuse, without alternative provision.
For some years past, we have had to rely for the control of these several groups of pests upon powers derived from the Defence Regulations and continued under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Acts. During that period we have acquired much knowledge and experience, and in this Bill provision is made for amending the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act and for preventing loss by general infestation of food, on lines which, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government, are essential if the necessary material saving for the benefit of the community is to be achieved.
The first Part of the Bill is devoted to the amendment of the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act of 1919. I recognise that your Lordships will desire to be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for varying the provisions of that Act, which, as I have already stated, has been little exercised by the local authorities empowered to execute and enforce its provisions. The local authorities have long held the view, from which it is impossible to dissent, that the provisions of the 1919 Act are not adequate for the radical solution of what is a general and indivisible problem.
478
The Act placed on the occupier of premises the primary duty for the destruction of rats and mice, and for preventing his premises from becoming infested with these pests. The duty on the local authority was simply to execute and enforce the provisions of the Act against individual occupiers. The actual duty upon the occupier was to take such steps as were "necessary and reasonably practicable." If it was not reasonably practicable for the occupier to do what was necessary, he was not under duty, and the local authority was powerless either to require any other party, such as the owner, to take the necessary steps, or itself to take them. It is small wonder that the local authorities were reluctant to exercise powers so limited that they made no significant contribution to the solution of the general problem.
In this Bill, control is vested in the Agricultural Ministers in England and Scotland, and under Clause 2 local authorities have the definite duty to prevent and remedy infestation in their districts. They will be specially responsible, amongst other things, for properties such as sewers and refuse dumps which are under their direct control. Under Clause 4 the owner is, for the first time, being brought into responsibility where the conditions are within his control and outside that of the occupier. The future obligation on the occupier, as set out in Clause 3, will be to notify the local authority if his premises become infested, as distinct from his present duty to destroy rats and mice on his premises. This does not prejudice his right to take steps, unless the local authority specifies otherwise. There is provision for formal exemption from the duty of notification in the case of certain trades which are recognised as being normally attractive to rats, and which would therefore be subject to regular inspections, but any such exemption would not remove the obligation to take such measures as the local authority might require under Clause 4.
These several provisions would be of limited value unless clear guidance on practical measures to implement the requirements was made available. Modern scientific methods have been worked out and tested in wide-scale practice during recent years, and research continues. Clause 4 makes provision for the specification of appropriate treatments, and

479
Clause 5 gives local authorities power themselves to take steps which have been neglected by the owners or occupiers in spite of notices served on them. Clause 5 also provides that failure to comply with the requirements of notices served under Clause 4 carries liability to penalties not exceeding £50 for a first, and £100 for a subsequent, offence. This provision replaces that prescribing a penalty not exceeding £20 for failure to comply with a notice under Section 1 of the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, and serves to recognise altered money values and the gravity of the offence.
Your Lordships will appreciate that if this problem is to be overcome, the good work of conforming authorities must not be prejudiced by the lower standards of neighbouring authorities, and that some degree of central guidance and direction is essential. The Bill provides for this, by Clause 13, and also strengthens the default powers of the Ministers, subject to a right to the particular local authority to be heard before a default order is made. Clause 8 extends the provisions of the first Part of the Act to shipping and aircraft, and Clause 9 provides powers for requiring the destruction of rats and mice where threshing is being carried out. Although the whole of the Bill applies to Scotland, Clause 8 is the only part which applies to Northern Ireland.
The second Part of the Bill, to which I would now invite your Lordships' attention, makes provision for the mitigation of damage by insects and mites to foodstuffs in the course of storage, processing, transport and distribution, and lays duties on the traders concerned in those activities. It is unfortunately the case that large insect and mite populations can, and do, maintain themselves in structures and transport equipment in this country, and that much of the food reaching our shores brings with it a constant stream of destructive insects and mites. In the course of trade, many of the species are transferred from infested to clean commodities, thus extending the range of damage. The multiplication rates are extremely high and, unless adequate control is exercised, the deterioration and loss of food may be of considerable magnitude.
Our present powers for dealing with this serious problem derive from Defence
480
Regulations, and are now continued under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Acts. It is urgently necessary that permanent provision be made for the effective control of this problem, and that is the purpose of Part II of this Bill. Clause 14, in fact, in subsections (1) and (2), continues the present obligation on food traders to give notice to the Ministers of this type of infestation in commodities, structures and equipment. Subsection (4), which is new, provides some easement which is not provided for in the Infestation Order, by empowering the Minister to make regulations relaxing or excluding the requirements of this section of the Bill. It is the intention that the regulations under this subsection shall be drafted in consultation with all the interests affected.
Subsection (3) is also a new provision, designed to ensure that those operators who know that food in their possession or control is infested do not hasten to pass the infestation on to some other party. I am aware that the particular wording of this provision is viewed with considerable misgivings by several trade interests, but I feel sure that the objective is one that will not be disputed. I agree that as the clause is drafted it might appear to be unnecessarily rigid, requiring the consent of the Minister to every movement of infested food. We are, however, in consultation with the representatives of the various food trades, and we are by no means wedded to the precise wording of subsection (3). These discussions will be continued, and the Government will be prepared to move appropriate Amendments in order to allow as free a flow as possible of food through the normal channels of trade, while at the same time maintaining such control as is necessary over infected parcels of food and preventing the free transmission of infestation which might accompany unregulated movement.
Under Clause 15, the Ministers may prescribe conditions for the storage and movement of infested food, or food likely to become infested, and they may specify treatments for the destruction of insects and mites. Clause 16 provides the right of appeal against directions under the preceding clause. Power to the Ministers to act on default of the traders concerned is provided in Clause 17. The penalties

481
for failure by food undertakers to comply with the directions of the Minister are provided for in Clause 18—that is to say, not exceeding £100 for a first, and £200 for a subsequent offence. It is proper, as I think your Lordships will agree, that as failure to comply with directions under Clause 15 might put considerable stocks of food in jeopardy, the penalty should be severe. Power to delegate to local authorities certain functions under this part of the Act is provided for in Clause 20.
Finally, I come to Part III, which includes, in Clause 21, provision enabling the Ministers to control the methods used by persons engaged in the business of preventing or treating infestation. This is a very necessary provision to ensure effective action and avoidance of food contamination. The remaining provisions of Part III of the Bill are of consequential and routine character. I trust that the brevity with which I have placed this Bill before your Lordships will not be taken as a measure of the seriousness with which His Majesty's Government view the matter. It is very serious, and I hope that the case I have presented for your Lordships' consideration satisfies you that this Bill should be given a Second Reading to-day, and be passed into law at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I would like to associate noble Lords on this side of the House with the first remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—namely, of regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is laid low and of our wishes for his speedy and complete recovery.
There can be no question from any side of this House as to the value of the main purpose of this Bill, which is to reduce the wastage of food at a very critical time through infestation by pests. But if we do support fully the broad principles of the Bill, it does not deprive noble Lords (and particularly those in Opposition) of the right, or indeed absolve them from the duty, of making a critical examination into the method of fulfilment of the broad objective with which we are in agreement. In my few remarks I shall
482
confine myself to a critical examination of some of the methods of execution, and I can assure the Government that during the various stages through which this Bill will pass we will look carefully at the Amendments which are put forward by the Government for the improvement of the measure, and we shall in due course put forward Amendments ourselves.
My first criticism is that this Bill gives wide powers to the authorities to whom power is delegated by the Government, but there is no specific definition of the evil with which the Bill is intended to deal. There is no definition anywhere of what is infestation capable of causing damage to food. Contained in the Bill are penalties for non-notification of infestation, and there are penalties for failure to give the appropriate treatment for infestation, but there is no definition of, as it were, the offence of infestation itself. For instance, under Clause 14 ships can he held up and businesses virtually frozen if this infestation takes place. But, I repeat, there is no definition of what makes infestation capable of causing damage, and I would ask the Government and the Minister to give some information if possible.
Is the measure a quantitative or a qualitative one? What degree of infestation so as to cause damage to food is sufficient to bring the "misdemeanour" of these animals within the ambit of the Bill? There are very great importers of foreign cheeses into this country; there must be a moment when the mite—and mites are referred to in the definition clause of the Bill—in these cheeses ceases to be an attractive and delectable morsel for your Lordships and becomes a menace to the welfare of the country. There must be a crossing over, as it were, from one stage to another. Before we pass such a measure as this the House, I think, is entitled to know exactly what that stage is, and when it occurs. After all, we all want tidy and good legislation, and that is the only purpose of my drawing these comparisons.
Under Clause 3, subsection (1), of the Bill, the occupier must give notice to the local authority in writing:
"… if it comes to his knowledge that the premises are infested with rats or mice."
Again, I ask: What is "infestation"? We all remember the old nursery rhyme:
"Dickory, dickory, dock,
The mouse ran up the clock."

483
That, presumably, was not infestation. But if six mice ran up six clocks, would that be infestation? Or would it be infestation if the number were 100 or 500? We must have some further information as to what is the definition of "infestation." I do not, however, wish to be merely destructive, and I am going to put forward a suggestion that the Government should look at this need for definition and perhaps consider tabling an Amendment which would say, for instance, "infestation which brings about substantial or serious damage to food"; or something of that kind. That would clarify the position and narrow down the almost limitless proposal put forward at the present time.
I should like now to pass to my next point, and say how glad I was to hear the Minister state that the Government were willing to consult with the various trade interests concerned. From information I have received from various trade interests it seems that they have some complaint that the Government have not hitherto consulted them. Certain of the corn and shipping interests were first told of the contents of this Bill at a meeting on the day on which the Bill was read a first time in your Lordships' House. If that is so, I think that the trade interests have a legitimate grievance, and it is for the Government to remedy that error by now taking all interests closely into consultation. The trade interests—who, after all, have intimate knowledge of this particular evil—feel that the Government built the Bill round S.R. & O. No. 680 of 1943, of which the Minister will be aware. But that Order was made under war conditions, and no one had examined the position with the trade in relation to peace-time circumstances until after this Bill was introduced.
For instance, this is the first time that the Ministry of Agriculture enter the dock area and the shipping world. These powers are a transfer of powers which the Ministry of Food had in the war. But during the war the position of shipping was protected by a Memorandum agreed between the Ministry of Shipping and the Ministry of Food. It was agreed that no action in these ships should be taken without the knowledge and agreement of the latter Ministry. I have searched this Bill and I cannot find any single mention of the Ministry of Transport—which
484
has now superseded the Ministry of Shipping in these matters. We would propose that shipping, which is a vital and a technical business, should be protected by an Amendment which would ensure that before the Minister of Agriculture exercised his powers in the shipping world there should be an obligation upon the Minister to secure agreement with the Minister of Transport. We should also like to see the Bill improved by an Amendment to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture shall have an obligation to consult the trade interests prior to issuing any orders under the powers which this Bill gives him. Those are two further ways in which this Bill could be improved.
We also have grave misgivings about the principle contained in Part II of the Bill, which, broadly, deals on a national basis with this pest menace from ships flying all flags entering British ports. The Minister is no doubt aware that rodent infestation has been dealt with by international convention, and we feel that insect infestation should be agreed internationally before permanent legislation is put upon the Statute Book. We suggest that the Government should reconsider the question dealt with in Part II to see whether it should not be excluded from the Bill, and the question of food damage dealt with by continuation of the 1943 Emergency Order until international agreement has been reached. We feel that there is a danger that if we have a national basis for dealing with ships of all flags coming into our ports, it will inevitably bear more harshly upon the British ships than upon the foreign ships. If that exclusion—which I hope the Government will consider—is found to be unacceptable, we put the alternative suggestion that Part II of the Bill should be drastically amended in the way of including those safeguards for consultation between Ministers and trade interests—I do not say agreement with trade interests, for that would not be constitutional.
Another point which disturbs us is that we cannot understand why the "owner or occupier" (those are the words of the Bill) should have notices served upon him,
"requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the notice for the destruction of rats or mice, or otherwise for remedying … the infestation."

485
It does not seem to me appropriate that a notice should be served upon an owner who has let on a 999 years' lease land on which a factory has been erected. There might sometimes be difficulty in finding him. We shall require further examination of that particular clause, and some convincing that the proposed procedure is the right one. Again, the members who are particularly interested in agriculture are worried about the powers given to local authorities at threshing time. If possible, we want an assurance, in the form of an Amendment to the Bill, that the Minister of Agriculture will ensure that local authorities shall deal reasonably and fairly. As we see it, the danger is that an essentially urban authority which has agricultural land around it may not have the agricultural knowledge—the agricultural "know-how," as it were—and might use those powers in a way that would impede the food production of this country.
Perhaps the Minister could give us some information on this point. We cannot understand what is the hurry about this legislation. The trade interests concerned consider that this Bill, conceived in a Government Department, is unworkable, if the wording of the Bill is to be taken as the true intention. There is the danger of hold-ups in ports, because I am informed that very few ports have the necessary facilities for dealing with infestation. When I began studying this subject, I was appalled when authoritative trade organisations told me that a large proportion of the grain and feeding-stuffs imported into this country arrived in an infested condition. I am informed that methods of treating the infestation exist only where special facilities are available, and that, consequently, at the present time only a small proportion can be treated. This Bill seems to envisage the war-time practice of grain being held in ports. To-day the grain is unloaded and passes right through the port, through the warehouses to the mills. The Minister of Food is the sole importer of grain at the present time, and is likely to be so for some time in the future—perhaps not for years; that depends. Therefore, it is already in the Minister's power to control imports and distribution, and it does not seem necessary that the Government should hurry through this legislation to deal with something for which the
486
Minister already possesses the powers. That is an additional argument why we hope that the Government will reconsider Part II of the Bill.
I think we all agree that co-operation with the trade interests is better than compulsion. We do feel, however—I do not want to put it too high—that in this measure the Government have come forward with something regarded by the trade interests as largely impracticable. They are trade interests who want to co-operate, and who like this pest infestation no more than anyone else does. It would have been better had there been more co-operation, and I believe that in that event this Bill would not have come forward in its present form. We ask the Government to consult now with the trade interests. We ourselves will consult with the trade interests. We will gladly co-operate with the Government on reaching agreement on as many Amendments as possible, but we must insist that the Government give us ample time between now and the later stages of the Bill. In his final words, the Minister said that he hoped that this Bill would be passed through all its stages in the shortest possible time. By all means let us pass it through all its stages in the shortest possible time, consistent with the Opposition having adequate time to consider the necessary Amendments, and consistent with the Government having time to make good the error which we feel they have hitherto committed in connection with this Bill—that of not consulting adequately those who are to be intimately connected with its operation. We give general support to the Second Reading, but we do not give general support to the detailed proposals in the Bill until they have been examined, and to a large extent modified.
4.48 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am going to take up only a small amount of your Lordships' time with the comments I have to make upon this Bill. First, I should like to join in the regrets which have been expressed concerning the unfortunate illness of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. One point in connection with this Bill which has already been mentioned in the debate is that there is a very important public health aspect of the question of the preservation of food in a condition free from pests. From

487
that point of view, the Bill has come at a most timely moment, when people are becoming more acutely conscious of the importance of the storing and the sale of food in as clean a condition as possible. One of the points about which we have not been very clear is the part which some of these pests have played in the contamination of food. For example, there are rats that carry the plague and cause a form of infective jaundice. Fortunately, that is a fairly rare condition and is not a source of great anxiety in this country. One recent discovery is that a number of the outbreaks of food poisoning which occur rather frequently are the result of infestation by mice. In one particular case which came to my knowledge some time ago, seventy-four people in a residential club or hostel were all taken ill with a somewhat violent form of food poisoning. It was not fatal, but they were taken sick. The infection in that case was traced to mice. It is important that we should take all the steps we can to keep down these pests. I do not want to attempt a definition of "infestation"—that is a difficult point—but we should try to see that infestation is kept down and that our food is kept free from it.
On the question of the destruction of rats and mice, I would point out that one of the particular methods widely used for such destruction is the use of the virus remedy called the "salmonella" group, which group itself causes most of the food poisoning. I am not sure that it is sensible that rats and mice should be killed by giving them a large dose of the germs with which they infect human-beings. I do not suggest that the sale of such remedies should be prohibited, but I think that efforts could be made to find a more satisfactory form of virus to kill these creatures—one which will not be so unpleasant, lethal and poisonous to people who may come in contact with it. I have nothing more to say on this Bill, except that I think it is, broadly speaking, one which we can warmly welcome.
4.50 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I crave the opportunity of intervening thus early in the debate because I have a speaking engagement in the City at 5.30 o'clock. As most of my criticism can be dealt with on the Committee stage, I
488
promise not to detain your Lordships unduly. First let me join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, most sincerely for his able, exhaustive and authoritative exposition of this Bill. He took it at short notice in the absence of a colleague. We all regret the cause of his colleague's absence, but we thank Lord Lucas for the way in which he has presented the Bill for our consideration. I do not propose to wander over all the ground covered by the Bill, because I am limited in time. If I were to deal with it more fully, I confess I should be tempted to draw attention to the fact that the War Office, through its camps, is one of the big culprits in this matter. However, I want to confine my remarks to the shipping and dock interests.
As a member of the Port of London Authority, there are two points I want especially to emphasise. The first is that it is crucial that directions given by the Minister shall not interfere with the unloading of cargoes from ships, the free passage of cargoes through post-transit sheds, and the uninterrupted use of essential post-warehouse accommodation. Secondly, in the case of dispute as to the party responsible for the cost of carrying out any directions of the Minister, responsibility, I submit, should be determined by a suitable appeal committee, appointed, I concede, by the Minister. May I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that if he cannot persuade the Minister to incorporate such Amendments in the Bill, it may be that comparable safeguards could be provided in regulations, relaxing or excluding the requirements of Clause 14 of the Bill? Powers for the making of such Regulations are given to the Minister in Clause 14, subsection (4). I would also seek an assurance that the measures to be taken and the procedure to be adopted in relation to ships shall be settled only after consultation with the shipping industry.
I wish to raise one other point in reference to ships. It is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, referred. Clause 15, subsection 2 (c), gives power to the Minister of Agriculture to issue directions requiring the carrying out of structural works on ships. I submit that that is plainly a function quite outside his sphere and knowledge. Although I earned my living in the carrying trade, I confess that,

489
after considering this Bill, I am thankful indeed that I am not a public warehouse-keeper. It is easy enough to make new provisions relating to the destruction of rats and mice in warehouses—and very essential, too, I agree. But, in my submission, it is beyond the wit of man to ensure that any one warehouse is preserved entirely free from this form of infestation. If you sealed up the whole waterside of the Port of London (which obviously would be impossible) there would be no sort of guarantee that within a few days—nay, within a few hours—of the clearance, infiltration and infestation would not take place by further inroads from the hinterland.
I am sorry, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, I am really very critical of this Bill from the dock and shipping interest standpoint. I cannot help feeling that this measure has not been given that careful thought and consideration that some of us expect from the Government. The problem with which the Bill deals does not seem to me to have been sufficiently thought through—for want of a better term. I would go further and say that, in my humble judgment, this Bill, at least so far as docks and riverside warehouses are concerned, is so astonishingly vague in the provisions for its operation, and so severe in its penalties, as to make it in practice, if not unworkable, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, at least exceedingly difficult even to attempt to operate.
4.56 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wish to intervene for only a very few minutes indeed, in order to give support to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in the criticisms he has made of this Bill. I do not propose to allude to the particular topic with which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has dealt. There I think the case has been clearly made out for a drastic amendment of this measure. But I think there will be a number of points from the agricultural aspect also, to which attention should be most carefully directed when we reach the Committee stage. The noble Lord expressed the willingness of the Government to go into consultation with the industries concerned, and I trust that in drawing up the Regulations that apply to this Bill, for instance, with regard to threshing and taking down ricks, no Regulations will
490
be passed without consultation with those who are best able to give advice—namely, the National Farmers' Union and the Central Landowners' Association. In that way, perhaps we shall be able to avoid some of those arbitrary mistakes made in some of the Regulations put forward by His Majesty's Ministers, and so not do the harm that might otherwise ensue.
On the general principle of the Bill I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that those of us who are concerned with the production of foodstuffs in this country, realising the appalling wastage that is brought about through the destruction of the available food by these pests, do welcome machinery which will increase the power for dealing with infestation—whatever may be the proper definition of that term, on which point I hope we shall also receive some enlightenment when the noble Lord comes to reply to this debate. All I wish to say, in conclusion, is that the agricultural interest is one of such importance and can be so easily adversely affected by the imposition of faulty Regulations, that I trust every consideration will be given to that point among many others which may be brought up in the course of the debate on the Committee stage.
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, in the course of this debate, notice has been taken of the obligation imposed by Clause 4 upon owners of land, and it may interest your Lordships to be reminded of the definition of "owner." In the Interpretation clause of this Bill we find that
"Owner" has the same meaning as in the Public Health Act, 1936, or, in Scotland, the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897."
I see, by referring to the Act of 1897—I have not had an opportunity of seeing the English Act, but I take it that the Scottish definition is similar to the English—that
"The word 'owner' means the person for the time entitled to receive, or who would, if the same were let, be entitled to receive, the rents of the premises, and includes a trustee, factor, tutor, or curator, and in case of public of municipal property applies to the persons to whom the management thereof is entrusted:"
This causes me to shake with anxiety, because I happen to be a trustee of a great number of charitable trusts, including colleges, schools, hostels for the poor

491
and so on. If I am to be charged with the duty of getting rid of mice and rats on all those premises, my responsibility is clearly going to be of an alarming character.
But my principal object in rising is to call attention to the effect of Clause 3 of the Bill on the ordinary householder—I nearly said the ordinary "mouseholder," and I do not know that there is very much difference between the two terms. Which of your Lordships can lay your hand upon your heart and declare, upon your honour, that there are no mice in your house? The ordinary country householder, whose premises may not be on agricultural land—if they were he would be exempt—is placed in a most jeopardous position by Clause 3. My own premises are not on agricultural land, but they are surrounded by agricultural land, and the mice, with their terrible and lamentable ignorance of statutory definitions, infest my garden and my house just as if they were situated on agricultural land. When I say "infest" I must be very careful, because I do not know for certain what "infest" means. While I have tremendous confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and great admiration for his talents, I must say that I do not believe that even he is capable of giving a satisfactory definition.
It would be all very well if the position were as it used to be. Under the old Act the obligation on the householder was to make up his own mind as to whether his premises were or were not infested. He was bound to take steps to reduce what he, personally, might consider infestation. No one else's definition of the word came into the question. Now the householder must consider not what he would deem to be infestation but what the local pests officer might regard as infestation, or what the magistrate before whom he might appear for failure to notify might consider to be statutory infestation. I see that one of the dictionary definitions includes a reference to fear. That particular definition is, I think:
"the presence of pests in such quantities as to give rise to fear."
I do not quite know how you would apply that in the case of mice; they can of course be very alarming little animals when they are present in great numbers. But I foresee that the pests officers of the
492
district councils, to whom responsibility is transferred under this Bill, will have an exceedingly busy time every autumn.
I have noticed—and my neighbours can confirm this—that we always have much trouble, really serious trouble, after the harvest is over. The little creatures, deprived of their normal source of food, invade our houses—with results that are very alarming. Even this year I was seriously considering ringing up some local authority or other to give them the information that there were an alarming number of mice in my house. I am glad to say, however, that in a week or two my house, and the houses of my neighbours, if not clear of the menace, were at least reduced to their normal condition, in which the presence of mice is not very apparent. But if the consequences of this measure are generally realised, I believe there is a real danger that at the time of harvest a great number of householders will ring up their district councils. What effect will that have on the staffing problem as it affects those councils? I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whether any estimate has been made as to the increase of staffs which this provision of the law will necessitate, especially as responsibility is being transferred from the county authorities to county boroughs and county districts. I presume that every county district will in future have to employ at least one pests officer; I am not at all sure that they will not have to employ more.
I have adopted a jocular tone in what I have said, but I would not like it to be thought for a moment that I am ignoring the very grave and serious peril with which this Bill is intended to deal. I know that strong legislation is required to deal with what is undoubtedly a most serious menace. But I am directing my attention to-day to these two points—the definition of "owner," who is referred to in Clause 4, and the inclusion of a reference to mice, in Clause 3. I ask His Majesty's Government to consider very carefully, in the first place, whether a more satisfactory definition of ownership cannot be arrived at for the purposes of Clause 4 and, secondly, whether they will not omit the word "mice" from Clause 3.
5.9 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I first thank noble Lords for

493
their very kind references to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon? I feel sure they will hearten him greatly when they are conveyed to him. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for a most constructive and helpful speech. I can assure him that most careful attention will be paid to everything he has said. He began by asking me a question which I was afraid he would ask—that was, how I would define "infestation." As he went on, however, I gained courage, because eventually he found himself in the same difficulty as that in which I find myself. I do not know what definition to put on "infestation." Of course, I could say that infestation could be a given number of rats, at a given place, at a given time and under given conditions; and that what might be infestation in one case might not be infestation in another.
But surely, as the obligation is to notify, would it not appear to noble Lords that the best and safest course to pursue is to notify? That, I suggest, would be the best thing to do, because what might appear to the inexperienced layman to be a very simple matter might, on inspection by a competent officer, turn out to be the nucleus of a serious infestation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Does a competent officer know what an infestation is?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I suggest that a competent officer, using a scientific knowledge, would know whether or not it was serious enough to tackle in a serious way.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not think we can let this go, because silence on this side of the House may be taken to mean assent with the noble Lord. Is he suggesting that directly anybody sees a rat or a mouse he should notify, and that then he will be on the right side of the law? Then someone will come along and either say, "All right, you need not worry; it is only a small family" or, alternatively, tell him, "There is a lot of breeding going on here; it is a menace." Or is the noble Lord suggesting that if there is no notification somebody is running the risk of offending against the law? I do not think his solution will work and I hope he will think again about the broad sugges
494
tion I made—namely, that a definition of "infestation" should be included to make it clear that there is infestation if substantial damage to food is caused.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was coming to that point; I had not finished by a long way. Surely common sense must play a part in this. Even people who see rats at times when they should not, have a certain amount of common sense. The noble Lord himself drew the analogy of mites in cheese. Where is the crossing-over point? When do mites in cheese cease to be a delectable morsel and become a pest? That depends on the palate. What might be a delectable morsel to the noble Lord, might be an infestation to my palate. How will the noble Lord get over that? It is a very difficult problem, but I think the noble Lord put forward something which could be, a working basis. The majority of the noble Lord's criticisms centre on Part II of the Bill. They raise such fundamental issues that I know the noble Lord will not expect me, on the spur of the moment, to give authoritative answers. I assure him that there were long and anxious consultations. Fifty food organisations were consulted—almost an infestation of food organisations—but evidently there are some which were left out. To those organisations I extend my regrets; and I would say that we are willing and, indeed, anxious to go into the whole of Part II, especially the clauses with which the noble Lord has dealt so ably, with him and any other noble Lords sitting opposite who will lend us their aid, and also with all the organisations who think they can make a useful contribution.
The noble Lord mentioned the question of the owner-occupier, which was also taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I think the noble Lord has perhaps failed to see that under the Bill the owner is brought: into responsibility where the conditions are within his control. I do not suggest for one moment that the noble Earl could be held responsible for rats and mice in all the charitable institutions—and they are legion—of which he is a trustee. Regarding agricultural interests, it is provided in the Bill that there will be consultation with the county agricultural committees. Here, perhaps, I may also answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.

495
The Departments concerned with this Bill are the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and from what I know of them, I cannot think that they would make regulations which might in any way affect adversely operations on any farm in this country without first consulting not only the National Farmers' Unions, but also the county agricultural committees and other agricultural organisations. I think noble Lords may rest assured that agricultural interests will be adequately safeguarded. In regard to threshing, which the noble Lord also mentioned, it will again be the Agricultural Ministers and not the local authorities who make these regulations, and I think that is sufficient safeguard.
In regard to the noble Lord's point about the further stages of the Bill, he may rest assured that due notice will be taken of what he has said and I have no doubt that he and I can leave the matter in safe hands. The noble Lord asked me: "Why the hurry?" It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the main purpose of this Bill is to make a real attempt to safeguard the nation's food. In my opening remarks, I emphasised that through infestation we are losing upwards of 2,000,000 tons of food a year. Surely that is the overriding consideration, and commercial interests on the other side of the scale cannot play an equal part. That is a point which I think noble Lords would do well to take into consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, spoke of the experience of the public health authorities in this work. Public health and this problem are indivisible and I am sure his observations will be studied in the appropriate quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised the question of ships and docks, and we will consider the suggestions he made. I should add, in reply to the noble Lord, that the Ministry of Transport were consulted at all stages in the preparation of this Bill. I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, joined in this debate, if he will allow me to say so. I have never heard him speak except in a serious vein, and I thought his humorous contribution relieved the monotony of our debate about a very sordid subject. I think I have answered his point about owner or occupier. In regard to staff, I hope the noble Lord
496
will not think I am trying to ride off his question, but let us find out how many rats there are before we say how many staff we require. I know he would be the first critic if the local authorities engaged a lot of pests officers, and that if the Civil Service was increased his condemnation would be even greater than it is on rats. I have tried, I hope not unsuccessfully, to answer all the questions which were raised. Once again, I thank noble Lords, and especially, if I may be allowed to say so, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for his very helpful contribution. I trust that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
5.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. I believe it is usual in this House to move the Bill formally, which I now do. However, if noble Lords have points on any of the Acts which they wish to raise, I will do my best to answer them, while not guaranteeing that at this stage I shall be able to give detailed replies to every conceivable question that might be put on the nine Acts and their amending Acts, with which we are concerned.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not wish to detain your Lordships many minutes, but I feel that we cannot allow this Bill to go through formally and without certain observations being made upon it. In this Bill there is a Schedule of Acts which are to be continued for one year. Amongst those are measures which we feel should not be continued, but which should be re-incorporated in new Bills, which could be discussed properly in this House and in another place. I refer, in particular, to The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, which was debated, to some extent, so

497
far as the limits of rules of Order would allow, in another place. That Act gives very wide powers to the Home Secretary. By Order in Council, it is possible for the Home Secretary to do almost anything with an alien. An alien can be prohibited from landing and from embarking; he can be deported; he can be required to reside in a certain place; he can be stopped from residing in a certain place; he can be required to reside in the United Kingdom; he can be requested to change his abode; he must register, and he must fulfil various other requirements.
Those powers were taken after the 1914–18 war, in order to continue _into peace time powers which were considered necessary between the years 1914 and 1918. Year after year they have been re-enacted. I do not in any way suggest that the Home Secretary does not require those powers now, just as much as ever before. I would like to make that perfectly clear. But I do think it is wrong and an anomaly that such wide powers should be continued in this way by an annual re-enactment of something which was promoted for circumstances which have long passed by. Surely it would be better to take a new Bill through all its stages, to confirm, to amend; or, if necessary, to expand the powers in the light of the needs of to-day, rather than to go on year after year, as we have done for thirty years. The temporary basis is a camouflage for something which we all know must be permanent.
In connection with The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, which will disappear from the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, the Government spokesman in another place, referring to the new Wireless Telegraphy Bill, said:
"The Government have introduced this Bill because they recognise that it is an anomaly that the Expiring Laws Act should be used year after year in this way and because they feel that the legislation requires bringing up to date."
I cite the Government, and the noble Lord's own colleagues, in support of my contention that it is fundamentally wrong that Ministers of the Crown should have these powers prolonged in the way they are prolonged under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act year after year, without an opportunity for Members in another
498
place to debate those powers, unless a Home Office vote is put down. I hope that between now and next year the Government will consider whether they should not bring forward a Bill, which I am sure would gain general support on all sides of the House, which will dispose of this anomaly.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I will, of course, convey what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I must not, however, be understood to hold out any immediate hope of a change in the sense indicated, in view of the refusal of the Under-Secretary to give any firm assurance on that point in another place. I quite appreciate the implication of the observation about my colleagues. The noble Lord will not misunderstand me if I say that there are those who can quote their Scripture for their own purposes—I need not specify them more closely. It is true that in the case of The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, legislation is under consideration. As regards The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, I was glad that the noble Lord did not question the necessity for those powers at the present time. I do not know that it is so certain that they will always be necessary and, therefore, I am not so sure as the noble Lord that the case for permanent legislation is made out. On that subject, I would only point out what is already well-known to him: that the legislative programme is very full, and that is one reason for not introducing permanent legislation just now. There is also the point that if we did pass permanent legislation there would not be the same opportunity that we have now for this annual review of the Act and any Orders made under the Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord is under some misunderstanding. In another place they cannot discuss the administration of an Act when considering the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That can only be done if a Home Office vote is put down.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am always glad to be corrected by the noble Lord, if he finds it possible and helpful to do so. I am not sure that I am the one who is mistaken on this occasion. To the best of my recollection, I did not actually say

499
—I may have slipped up—that it can be discussed on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I said there is opportunity for annual review. I think that is conceded by the noble Lord, and perhaps his interruption was a little hasty. However, I am grateful to him for putting forward those constructive suggestions. In the light of this discussion, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (ABOLITION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DIRECTOR OF THE TERRITORIAL ARMY
5.27 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely: To ask His Majesty's Government for how long it is intended that the newly appointed Director of the Territorial Army, Major-General Herbert, is to hold this appointment.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the appointment of the present Director of the Territorial Army and Cadets is for two years, which may, subject to review, be extended for a third year, the exigencies of the Service permitting. This is the same tenure as was given to the three preceding Directors but, for reasons which. I shall explain, it was not found possible for them to complete their tenures. On the sudden illness of Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Horrocks, Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Keightley (then Military Secretary) was selected as G.O.C.-in-C., B.A.O.R., and the then Director of the Territorial Army and Cadets, Major-General (now Lieutenant-General) Sir Robert Mansergh, was appointed to the post of Military Secretary. This was in April, 1948. Then, on the unexpected retirement through ill-health of Major-General Lyne, the Commander-elect for British Troops in Egypt, Major-General G. W. E. J. Erskine
500
(Major-General Mansergh's successor as Director of the Territorial Army and Cadets) was selected for promotion and appointment as Commander for British Troops in Egypt.
Thus it will be seen that the last two Directors of the Territorial Army and Cadets will not have remained in the appointment for the full term, owing to their being needed to fill other appointments which fell vacant as a result of illness. The tenure of the appointment of D.T.A. and C. of two years, subject to review for a third year, is the normal tenure given to General Officers and Commanders on appointment, but it must also be subject to the exigencies of the Service. Although, for this reason, no absolute assurance can be given, my right honourable friend hopes that it will be possible for Major-General Herbert, who is to take up the appointment shortly, to remain in it for the full period.
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has done well to bring forward this question. Whilst I do not question any of the facts which the noble Lord opposite has stated (which I know to be correct), I feel that while they are reasons they are not necessarily excuses. This frequent change of Directors of the Territorial Army—four Directors have come and gone since 1944, which was when I handed over the appointment—has caused a great deal of bad working in the Territorial Army Directorate, and it has caused a very definite feeling in Territorial Army circles that when the Director is constantly changed, the Territorial Army cannot be as important as it is made out to be. I will make no comment upon that, but I know that is the feeling in a number of circles.
I must keep up what I think is our record this afternoon by making a constructive suggestion. My constructive suggestion on this occasion is this: the War Office should go back to the practice which held from 1908 until 1939—except for the 1914–18 War—of having a Lieutenant-General. Under those conditions, the noble Lord opposite will find—if he does not already know—that almost all the Directors of the Territorial Army ran for their full four years. We could then avoid this unpleasant choice

501
of doing wrong by the Territorial Army or doing wrong by the individual. I hope the noble Lord will convey that suggestion, which is meant constructively, to his right honourable friend.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I will most certainly convey that constructive suggestion to my right honourable friend.

AIR MAIL SERVICE TO MALAYA
5.32 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to ask His Majesty's Government when it will be possible to cheapen and accelerate the air mail service between the United Kingdom and Malaya. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this question can be put very briefly, and it arises out of the debate upon Malaya which was held in your Lordships' House last Wednesday. One of the best reports of that debate was in the Manchester Guardian, and to send a copy of the Manchester Guardian to Malaya by air mail, in order that the report may not be out of date, costs 5s. Even The Times which, with some enterprise, prints a thin India paper edition costs 3s., while it costs no less than 15s. to send by air mail a copy of the Weekly Edition of the Lords Hansard. At a time when it is essential that the exchange of news and views between England and Malaya should be fostered and increased, those prices seem to me outrageous.
The unfortunate result of this position is that in practice up-to-date English newspapers are available only to official circles in Malaya; and the same, of course, applies to Malayan papers coming back home. It means that those who are not millionaires have to fall back on the sea mail; and that is slow and erratic enough, in all conscience. The air mail, of course, is not all that fast. The average time taken by the aircraft to fly from here to Malaya is about four days. The fast Constellations take two days, and the slower flying-boats five days. But the average time taken by the air mail is something like eight days, and on many occasions it has taken up to twelve days. When air mail takes as long as twelve days, one may as well resort to sea mail once again. I realise, of course, that there are difficulties, and that few things are affected more by post-war conditions than
502
communications. I know also that there are many countries involved in the negotiations—in particular, Australia, which takes a lot of the mail in her aircraft. I would, however, like the noble Earl who is to reply to let us know what, if any, are the prospects of second-class air mail being reintroduced for Malaya.
The reason I feel justified in putting forward this claim is that I think Malaya ought to have, and deserves, special attention just now. It is most important at this moment to have a ready and quick exchange of views. We have also to consider the interests of a large number of young Service men who are serving abroad, a long way from home, for the first time. Nothing is more satisfactory for the upkeep of morale than a quick and cheap air mail service, and particularly of newspapers. Letters, newspapers, and especially local newspapers, are among the first things which are demanded by the soldier abroad on active service. It is peculiarly gratifying, it seems, to a soldier when he is lonely and 8,000 miles from home, to read that some old and dear friend has been arrested for being drunk and disorderly in his own High Street. Moreover, the planters, who are serving against the bandits in the same front line as the soldiers, are being charged for their mail almost double the rate which the Service men pay. I am not, of course, suggesting that the Service rates should be raised. I am suggesting, however, that 1s. per ½ oz. for an air mail letter to Malaya is too high.
I appreciate that there are difficulties. I do not blame the Government in any particular way for this. I am afraid I cannot put forward any constructive suggestion as other noble Lords have done in other matters this evening, but at least I hope that the noble Earl will not tell us that, since both the aircraft and the postal services are nationalised, we ought to consider ourselves very lucky that the charges are not a great deal higher. I would like the noble Earl to say what he thinks about the prospect of the service for both newspapers and letters being cheapened and accelerated in the near future.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, should like to stress the point the noble Lord has made, especially in regard to the mails for the troops. I know there are very strong complaints, not only from one

503
branch of the Service, or from any particular regiment, but from a great many of them, that letters are taking an extremely long time to arrive. As has been said already, this is a very important factor. Many of the troops serving out there now are, as we know, young boys, and it is essential that when they are serving in that sort of country they should have regular mails.
It will probably be said that there are difficulties. Of course there are difficulties, but difficulties are made to be overcome. If we go back even as far as the 1914–18 war, and certainly the 1939–45 war, the mails were dealt with expeditiously, and there were few places in the front line where one did not receive letters fairly quickly. I do not expect any excuses to be put forward, because I do not think they can be reasonable. There is here a case which should be dealt with at once, and I very much hope that the noble Earl who is to reply, even if he cannot deal with it to-night, will make quite certain before he retires to his comfortable bed—I presume it is a tolerably comfortable bed—that something will be done for the troops who are out there.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this matter, but I do not think his complaint should be confined to the services to Malaya. It is a question of the air services from this country all over the world. It is too expensive to send what one might call second-class mail, in the shape of newspapers, by air. If the noble Earl looks up the cost of subscribing to the air mail copy of The Times in, say, Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro, I think he will realise that it is practically prohibitive. Even agencies of His Majesty's Government are not able to obtain, or are not allowed, that service, yet it is this wide dissemination of British papers like The Times throughout the world which can do so much to spread our influence and culture.
5.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for raising this question, because we attach just as much importance as he does to the need for rapid and easy dissemination of political news among the different parts of the
504
Commonwealth. I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, that we need a frequent and rapid air mail service to Malaya in order to keep up the morale of our serving men out there. The possibility of introducing reduced air postage rates for second-class mail to Malaya, and to other Commonwealth destinations in the Eastern Hemisphere, is being considered and examined by the Postmaster-General in consultation with the other authorities concerned, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and British Overseas Airways Corporation. I think I may say that everyone shares the desire of the noble Lord opposite for a lower rate for printed matter—daily newspapers, Hansard, and so on—and we do accept in principle the need for this cheaper service.
It is not at present possible to reduce the air postage rate to Malaya for first-class mails, but in consultation with the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore this possibility is being examined in order that we may be able to assimilate the inward rates from Malaya to the outward rates from the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord is aware, there is at present a discrepancy between these two rates. The mails are carried on direct air service to Singapore, which is scheduled to take three days. There have, unfortunately, been occasional delays to the aircraft en route but, apart from the elimination of such accidental delays—which of course we shall make every endeavour to achieve—there is little scope for acceleration.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Earl say what he means exactly by "assimilation of inward rates and outward rates"? Before he does so, I should like to say how glad I am to hear that the Government have taken this matter in hand. I cannot agree with the figures that the noble Earl has given with regard to the air mail to Singapore. I am concerned in a great many dispatches of air mail to Singapore, and I find that the actual time taken is between five and seven days—that is, an average of six days—as compared with the three days mentioned by the noble Earl. That is very inconvenient, but, apart from that, I have compared the time with the time taken by air mail to Southern Rhodesia. I admit that Southern Rhodesia (I am speaking of Salisbury) is a thousand miles closer than Singapore to this country; but

505
our air mail to Southern Rhodesia takes between three and five days, which is an average of four days, as compared with the average of six days to Singapore; that is to say, it takes two days longer to do the thousand miles. That is not right, and I think that if the noble Earl, in looking into this question, would compare Singapore's position with that in other parts of the Commonwealth he will find that Singapore is extremely badly served.
I also want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft and other noble Lords have said with regard to the expense. One understands that the first-class air mail would cost 1s. per ½-oz. But there is a good deal of other mail, what one might call second-class mail, that has to be dispatched to that part of the world, which cannot wait four or five, or even six, weeks before reaching its destination. I support my noble friend's plea that something should be done in that direction. I would also ask for the same thing to be done for Southern Rhodesia. The second-class mail to these places should be made cheaper.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Arising out of the noble Earl's reply—which I am afraid does not get us very much further—I wonder whether the Minister appreciates that Malaya is not like other overseas theatres at the present time, but that it is virtually a theatre of war for many of the inhabitants in that area. Could he not consider a reduced air mail rate for first-class or second-class mail (the class, of course, is represented by the time taken) for Service personnel and others engaged in keeping law and order out there, in the same manner as during war time?
Secondly, could the noble Earl clarify the phrase, rather heavily-worded, which he employed in the last part of his answer. He said: "It is not at present possible to reduce the air postage rate to Malaya for first-class mails, but in consultation with the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore this possibility is being examined in order that we may be able to assimilate the inward rates from Malaya to the outward rates from the United Kingdom." But it is the outward rates from the United Kingdom to which we are objecting; we are saying that they are much too heavy. All
506
the noble Earl is saying is that he is going to see whether he can get a rate which is a heavier burden still reduced to the same level as the rate about which we are complaining. I must say that that does not get us very much further.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to deal with the point made by the noble Viscount. Lord Elibank, and taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I must apologise if there was anything abstruse in my use of the word "assimilate"—which I agree is subject on different occasions to different interpretations. What I meant in my reply was that the air mail irate from the United Kingdom to Malaya is slightly cheaper than the air mail rate from Malaya to the United Kingdom. A letter costs a 1s. from the United Kingdom to Malay and a postcard costs 6d., whereas from Malaya a letter costs 1s. 2d. and a postcard 7d. I hope I have been able to make clear what I intended concerning the difference between the two rates for air mails. I am sorry that it is not possible at the moment to go further than this undertaking to try to bring the rates together; but this, I think, is a step in the direction which the noble Lord opposite and other noble Lords wish to take—namely, to reduce air mail postage rates. I can assure all noble Lords that it is the desire of the Postmaster-General to have the lowest possible rates, in the interests of the public, and that noble Lords suggestions will be passed on to him and, I can guarantee, given the most serious and sympathetic consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to thank the noble Earl for what he has said. I do not expect him to give another reply, but I urge him very earnestly to bring to the notice of his right honourable: friend the points which have been made here this afternoon, and to lower the cost of correspondence from home. Letters from home to the troops are a matter of the very first importance, and the figures which the noble Earl has given for their postage are very high. One shilling is a large amount for the average working-class family to spend on postage on a letter — and the more letters they write the better for everyone concerned. I should have thought that

507
the troops in Malaya were so limited in number that the expense to the Post Office of a concession of this kind would not be enormous. The noble Earl has said several times that it could not be done, but he has never said why; and some of us would like to know. I suspected the reason to be that the Post Office do not like to make variations in their rates, but apparently it is not that. I thought perhaps it would make the loss on civil aviation even greater than it is at present! In any case, this is a very urgent matter, and in spite of the negative answer which the noble Earl has been obliged to give, I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter.

TOTAL ACREAGE PLANTED BY THE FORESTRY COMMISSION, 1947–1948

Species

England

Scotland

Wales

Total

acres

acres

acres

acres

Conifers

Scots Pine

…

2,340

3,555

430

6,325

Corsican Pine

…

737

118

19

874

European Larch

…

58

330

47

435

Japanese Larch

…

416

704

963

2,083

Douglas Fir

…

302

237

55

594

Norway Spruce

…

1,456

2,927

1,450

5,833

Sitka Spruce

…

5,807

7,979

2,864

16,650

Pinus Contorta

…

64

125

17

206

Other

…

67

122

150

339

Total conifers

…

11,247

16,097

5,995

33,339

Hardwoods

Ash

…

13

—

—

13

Beech

…

1,682

59

43

1,784

Birch

…

86

—

4

90

Oak

…

1,060

21

—

1,081

Sweet Chestnut

…

21

—

—

21

Sycamore

…

1

12

—

13

Other

…

36

2

6

44

Total hardwoods

…

2,899

94

53

3,046

GRAND TOTAL

…

14,146

16,191

6,048

36,385

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD asked His Majesty's Government whether they will state the planting costs per acre incurred by the Forestry Commission during the season 1947–1948, excluding cost of ground, and "overheads" other than supervision of actual planting, but itemising the various costs of preparation of ground, draining, fencing, wire-netting (where used), transport, wages and plants.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon. It

  PLANTINGS BY FORESTRY COMMISSION
  PLANTINGS BY FORESTRY COMMISSION