Sitting of 13 December 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o' Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
"That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:
SCHEDULE
Standing Order 84, line 1, at beginning, insert ' One clear day.'
Standing Order 120, line 8, after 'on,' insert ' the … Bill or on.'
Line 11, after first 'in,' insert 'the said Bill or.'
Line 12, leave out from 'Group,' to 'and,' in line 15.
Standing Order 129, line 13, at end, insert ' provided that any such petition may be printed, lithographed, typewritten, or written by hand.'
Line 14, after ' Provided,' insert ' also.'
Line 33, leave out from ' than,' to end of Order, and insert ' the tenth day after that on which the Bill was read the first time.'
Standing Order 132, line 6, leave out' from time to time.'
Standing Order 141, line 7, leave out from 'Committee,' to end of Order.
Standing Order 144, line 3, leave out ' either.'
Line 4, leave out from ' House,' to ' shall,' in line 5.
Standing Order 163, line 5, leave out 'presented by being.'
Line 8, leave out ' one clear,' and insert ' the second.'
Line 10, leave out ' determination,' and insert ' Report.'
Line 24, leave out ' presented by being.
Line 27, leave out ' one clear,' and insert 'the second.'
Line 30, leave out ' whichever is the later,' and insert—
'Provided that if such leave be given before the first day in February upon which the House sits, the Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House on that day or within the two days following.'
Line 30, after ' and,' insert ' that.'
Standing Order 166, line 4, leave out from ' laid,' to ' and,' in line 5.
Line 5, leave out ' Votes,' and insert ' Journal of the House.'
Line 6, leave out 'and ordered.'
Standing Order 170, line 9, leave out from ' that,' to end of Order, and insert ' the seventh day after the date of the Examiner's Report, or, if the Examiner has reported that the Standing Orders have not been complied with or has made a Special Report under Standing Order 79, after the day on which the House gives leave to the parties to proceed with the Bill or agrees to a Resolution reported from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders have been complied with.'
Standing Order 190, line 7, leave out from ' to' to end of line 9, and insert ' that the Bill shall be set down in the Private Business List for the next day on which the House shall sit.'
Standing Order 204, line 6, after ' Bill, insert ' not less than one clear day's.'
Line 7, leave out from ' Office,' to end of Order.
Standing Order 217, line 15, leave out 'seven clear days after,' and insert 'the seventh day after that on which.'
Line 16, leave out ' has been,' and insert 'is.'
Line 20, leave out from ' than,' to end of line 22, and insert ' the tenth day after that on which the Bill was read the first time.'
Standing Order 220, line 35, leave out ' presented,' and insert ' laid on the Table of the House.'
Line 36, leave out 'after the First Reading.'
Table of Fees, page 253, line 4, leave out from first 'Committee,' to 'shall,' in line 5, and insert ' on an opposed Bill.'
Line 6, leave out from 'which,' to ' shall,' in line 7, and insert ' a Committee on an Unopposed Bill.'"
I need not detain the House for more than a moment or two over these Amendments, which are mainly of a drafting nature. However, I should perhaps draw the attention of hon. Members to three points
The Amendment to Standing Order 141 will have the effect of reducing the burden on chairmen of Private Bill Committees in signing the committee copy of a Private Bill. At present chairmen have the duty to initial each page upon which an Amendment has been made. The new Standing Order requires a signature to be given only at the end of a Bill and an initial to each new Clause.
The Amendment to Standing Order 84 will ensure that details of the Amendments to be proposed by the promoters

2483
before Unopposed Bill Committees will be available for perusal two days before the Committee meets instead of the one day only.
There are also Amendments which clear up one or two obscurities relating to the use of the term "clear days" in the Standing Orders.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Benefits (Transfers)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of National Insurance how many names have been transferred from the register of unemployed people to the register of people drawing sickness benefit in each of the quarters during which the National Insurance Act has been in operation, to the latest available date.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The number of claims for unemployment benefit disallowed on the ground that the claimant is not capable of work is about 850 a quarter. These numbers are small in relation to the total number of persons changing from unemployment to sickness benefit in normal course. No statistics of such transfers are available.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain districts the statement is being made that these figures are being "cooked," that people are being transferred from the one register to the other in order to make the employment situation in this country look better than it really is? Would he give the direct lie to that propaganda?
    Mr. Griffiths: The fact of the matter is that under the old scheme it often paid men better to go on unemployment benefit than on sickness benefit. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had experience of men who badgered their doctors saying, "Please say I am fit for work so that I can get unemployment benefit at the higher rate." Now the benefit rates are the same, and this is in the interests of the men themselves.

    Public Assistance
    Major Bruceasked the Minister of National Insurance what was the average number of people drawing basic public assistance in Great Britain for the years 1919–23, 1935–39 and 1945–49. respectively.
    Squadron-Leader Flemingasked the Minister of National Insurance how many non-contributory old age pensioners are receiving additional financial help from the Public Assistance Board in the Manchester City area.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am having prepared such information as is available and will write to the hon. Members as soon as possible.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: In view of the fact that there are a considerable number of old age pensioners on the contributory list who are compelled at present to go to public assistance, would the right hon. Gentleman consider some means of increasing the basic pension so that they will not be forced to do so?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is another question.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it is that he is likely to have this rather important information available, and in what form he proposes to publish it?
    Mr. Griffiths: One hon. Member asked me for some figures a fortnight ago and he has had them well over a week ago. We are preparing these figures now. If any hon. Member would like to have them circulated, perhaps he would put a Question down and I will have them circulated.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Would my right hon. Friend publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as a result of these Questions?
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Members who asked the Questions desire that, certainly I will do so.

    Dockyard Workers, Foreign Stations
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take in order to ensure that employees in His Majesty's Dockyards do not lose their National Insurance and Pension rights when serving at foreign

    2485
    stations, in view of the fact that during such times, no National Insurance contributions are paid either by them or by the Admiralty on their behalf.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Workers sent abroad to His Majesty's Dockyards are generally covered by the new scheme. I have consulted my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is not aware of any general difficulty in the application of the scheme in this respect. My noble Friend and I are looking into an individual case, particulars of which have been supplied by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Middleton: I understand that when men go abroad in this way their benefits are continued for only one year and then they have to pay as non-employed people. Would it not be better for the Admiralty in those circumstances to continue paying throughout in order that these men might be maintained in full insurance?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I am discussing this individual case with him and will take the opportunity of discussing the matter generally.
    Mrs. Middleton: I would like to say that I put this Question down to the Admiralty because I wanted to put that point to them.

    Temporary Staff (Dismissals)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he has taken to ensure that temporary civil servants in his Department, who are deemed to be redundant, are safeguarded against unfair charges of inefficiency as a ground for their dismissal when, in fact, they are dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Any officer who is reported as inefficient is given particulars in writing and has a right to an interview with a senior officer, at which he may be accompanied by a friend or a representative of his staff association. In practically all cases a trial on fresh duties is arranged before a final decision is taken. These arrangements are in accordance with standard practice agreed with the recognised staff associations.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from time to time persons are told that they are dismissed on the ground that they are redundant and there is no further need for them; that on one particular occasion a person who had completed seven years' satisfactory service as a temporary clerk received on the same day as the notice of redundancy a notice to say that she was inefficient, even though a month previously she had been recommended for the establishment examination; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that things of that sort do not happen in his Department?
    Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of that case. All cases are dealt with in accordance with the arrangements with the staff associations.

    Assistance Scales (Cost of Living)
    Mr. Tom Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance if he has considered the communication from the National Assistance Board concerning a review of the National Assistance Regulations in view of the rising cost of living; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of National Insurance what changes in the regulations relating to the National Assistance Board scales are proposed by his Department.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am informed by the Board that they have sent a letter in reply to representations made to them by my hon. Friends on 7th December. The Board do not think that the change in prices since the present rates of assistance were approved by Parliament last year is sufficient to justify them at present in submitting fresh draft regulations to me. The Board are, however, continuing to watch the position closely.
    Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great disquiet throughout the country, as is indicated by Questions on the Order Paper from time to time, about the suffering of these people who cannot make ends meet because of the increased cost of living; and will he, along with officials of his Department and the Assistance Board, consider this matter very seriously?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Board have considered this matter very carefully on representations made by my hon. Friend and several others of my hon. Friends. I have given the Board's considered reply, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Austin: But in view of the fact that the Board are either unaware or unconcerned about the great hardship and distress caused through the rising cost of living, would my right hon. Friend recommend to the Board an increase of 10 per cent. in these scales, which would cost only about £10 million a year?
    Mr. Griffiths: I would not accept the view of my hon. Friend that the Board are either unaware or unconcerned. Since they took over the administration of National Assistance in 1948, the Board have done a very good job indeed.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many old people in areas like Lancashire, which were depressed before the war, have no savings and have only these scales on which to live, and as they were already inadequate before devaluation will he treat their review as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have said that the Board are looking at them. My experience—I believe the Board will confirm it—is that there are still a number of people who are not applying to the Board for assistance, and I think that those are the hard cases. Very often people do not apply because they feel it is undignified to do so. I hope that Members in every part of the House will encourage such people to apply.
    Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rising cost of living gives anxiety on all sides of the House?
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that. I am also aware of what this Government have done for the old people.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are in much closer touch with these old people than are the members of the Board, and that the best thing I can suggest to the Minister is that the members of the Board should give a month's trial to living on the allowance?
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Do we understand the Minister to say that there has not been a sufficient rise in the cost
    2488
    of living to ensure a rise in the corresponding rates of assistance?
    Mr. Griffiths: I had better repeat my original answer:
    "The Board do not think that the change in prices since the present rates of assistance were approved by Parliament last year is sufficient to justify them at present in submitting fresh draft regulations to me. The Board are, however, continuing to watch the position closely."
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that, whatever the National Assistance Board have decided, it is physically impossible at present for a person to live on 26s. a week?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Board have power under the regulations to supplement the allowances.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Were not the Board appointed to avoid political capital being made out of the sufferings of these people?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Board were appointed, of course, to administer the scheme.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Holidays with Pay, Bedford
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of insured workers in Bedford who received holidays with pay in 1939 and 1949, respectively.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I regret that information is not available in respect of particular areas.

    Industry (Restrictive Practices)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the Government's continued exhortations to those in industry for increased productivity and lower costs, he will give a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or in the form of a White Paper, of all restrictive practices of trade unions and employers which are adversely affecting production and costs.
    Mr. Isaacs: There is no such list as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member nor would it be practicable to compile one.
    Major Lloyd: Could not the Minister do anything about these continued restrictive practices in view of the clamorous and almost pathetic appeals for more production and reductions in the cost of production? Do not the Government know that these restrictive practices are standing in the way of their objectives? Why will the Government do nothing about them—are they afraid?
    Mr. Isaacs: Why does not the hon. and gallant Member put down the Question he wants answered? I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. The hon. and gallant Member asked for a list. There is no such list. I said that it is not practicable to prepare one, and so far as restrictive practices are concerned, a great number of them have been "put up." If those who throw the stones at the trade unions would recognise what the unions have done in this connection and what they are still prepared to continue to do, they would be a little more generous.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question does not refer only to trade unions, and why does he make political capital out of it?
    Mr. Isaacs: Why does not the hon. and gallant Member, in making his allegations, make it more clear exactly what he is saying? It is true that the Question refers to restrictive practices by employers. The House should already be aware from the information given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we have asked the employers' organisations and the trade unions to examine these matters. They are doing so, and I think they are having a job to find the practices.
    Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the policy of the Government remains what it was in the White Paper of 1947: namely, to do everything to get rid of these practices, on whatever side of industry they exist?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and it is for that reason that some time ago we asked the National Joint Advisory Council to conduct an inquiry. They made preliminary investigations and got together some data which they are examining I
    2490
    understand that they are likely to report to me early in the New Year. We are still trying, therefore, to remove any objectionable practices on either side.
    Mr. Awbery: When my right hon. Friend has this list of restrictive practices exercised both by the trade unions and by employers, no doubt he will be in a better position to answer the Question

  SCOTLAND

    Mass Radiography
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent mass radiography is now used for the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Over 300,000 chest examinations have been carried out by mass radiography since 1944. In the last year for which figures are available, up to 30th June, 1949, over 97,000 examinations were made as a result of which 670 persons were found to have active tuberculosis.

    School Places
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of extra school children for whom he will need to find extra places in 1950, 1951 and 1952; and what steps he is taking to meet the need for additional accommodation.
    Mr. Woodburn: The total school roll will not rise in 1950; it will rise by approximately 16,000 in 1951 and by a further 24,000 in 1952. Not all of these additional children will require additional places; in many country areas the necessary places are already there. The precise needs for each area must be determined by the education authority, with whom the responsibility for erecting the necessary schools rests. I have asked all authorities to review their needs and to draw up revised building programmes for the years in question; it is hoped that the labour and materials required can be made available within the limits imposed by the capital investment programme.
    Mr. Rankin: When my right hon. Friend gets the necessary information from the local authorities will an opportunity be given to the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss any recommendations before they are put into operation?
    Mr. Woodburn: It is, of course, the duty of the education authorities to go ahead with the building of schools so far as is possible. The Scottish Grand Committee will in due course have an opportunity of discussing this matter.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the Secretary of State talks of the limits of labour and material that will be available, can he give an assurance that no labour and material will be diverted from the housing programme?
    Mr. Woodburn: That is rather difficult, because quite clearly if the whole of the building trade of the country is fully occupied the production of one type of building can be increased only at the expense of some other type.
    Commander Galbraith: Has not the Secretary of State assured the House previously that the building programme will continue as at present?
    Mr. Woodburn: The building of houses will continue as at present. The point is that if schools are to he built, that may prevent an increase in the number of houses beyond what is contained in the present programme.

    National Health Service (Doctors)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of general practitioners who are acting as assistants under the National Health Service scheme; and the number who are principals.
    Mr. Woodburn: At 1st October, 1949, the number of assistants was approximately 250, and the number of principals was 2,411.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any evidence that assistants are finding it difficult to become principals?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. There has not been much change since the introduction of the service.

    Hospitals, Western Region
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of hospital beds taken over from Glasgow Corporation and the voluntary hospitals in Glasgow, respectively, by the
    2492
    Western Regional Board; the number of staff, medical, pharmacists, clerical, etc., formerly employed by the corporation; and the number of additional staff, in similar categories, now required.
    Mr. Woodburn: The numbers of beds are, respectively, 13,000 and 4,200 in round figures. The policy of the National Health Service is to develop an integrated hospital service with the smaller hospitals associated with the larger ones so as to raise the general quality of all hospital services to that of the best. The Glasgow hospitals have therefore been regrouped and it is impossible to obtain comparable figures for all grades of staff employed in the former corporation hospitals at 5th July, 1948, and today. Because of the new policy a larger specialist staff is now available at the former corporation hospitals and the part-time nursing staff has increased by some 170.
    Mr. Scollan: Does the larger specialist staff mean that the ordinary practitioner who formerly gave his services to the hospital has now become a specialist?
    Mr. Woodburn: No. It means that these other hospitals are now available for the carrying out of operations, and the specialists can be there in attendance

    Distributive Trades
    Mr. M. MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the very large proportion of the working population engaged in the distributive trades, he will consider including in the 1949 White Paper on industry and employment a section dealing with these trades.
    Mr. Woodburn: The distributive trades cover a wide range of economic activities and the information available to the Government about them is limited. For this reason a Census of Distribution is to be taken in 1951 and when its results are known, consideration will be given to the inclusion of further details about these trades and about the value of their services in the White Paper on industry and employment in Scotland.

    Housing, Highlands and Islands
    Mr. MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the official announcement in May last with

    2493
    regard to arrangements made by him under Section 77 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, for providing assistance by way of grants towards the erection and improvement of dwelling-houses and other buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands, he will state the number of applications for grants which have been received, the number of grants which have been approved, and the number of cases in which the work of rebuilding and improvement is now in progress.
    Mr. Woodburn: One thousand one hundred and twenty-three applications have been received. Consideration of applications involves correspondence with landowners and county councils followed by local inspections and it has not been possible to approve more than 64 applications so far. I hope, however, that a very much larger number will be approved before the end of the winter but I regret that I cannot state the number of cases in which work has actually commenced.
    Mr. MacLeod: I presume by that reply that the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the speed of this excellent scheme? Will he make sure that the scheme is not postponed or delayed because of our present financial difficulties?
    Mr. Woodburn: This is a valuable part of our agricultural development, and there is no question of that.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the average time taken between submission and carrying out of the 64 schemes he has mentioned?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, the scheme has been in operation for too short a time for any such estimate to be given.
    Mr. MacLeod: Is there any undue delay in considering these applications?
    Mr. Woodburn: Not so far as it lies within my power, but as the hon. Member will understand a great number of people are involved in the consultations who are not under my direction and that has to be taken into account.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Disabled Pensioners, Birmingham (Motor Cars)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of motor cars provided for seriously disabled pensioners which have been allotted to Birmingham; and how many are being made available for the Haig Homes, Moseley.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): Thirty-two eligible pensioners are at present living in Birmingham and 22 of them have already received cars. One eligible pensioner lives in the Haig Homes and he will shortly be provided with a car.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Birmingham is getting its. appropriate allocation of these cars for disabled men?
    Mr. Simmons: Certainly. The cars, are given according to categories of disablement and our records show that on these standards 32 pensioners in Birmingham are eligible, of whom 22 have already been supplied, which I think is rather a good record.

    Allowances (Statutory Instrument)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Pensions (1) why S.R. & O., 1949, No. 2025, permits the allowance for prolonged abstention from work to date back to 1st December, 1947, whereas the allowance for lowered standards of work is only to date back to 1st May, 1948, and the supplementary allowance to the unemployable to 18th August, 1948;
    (2) why S.R. & O., 1949, No. 2025, permits the allowance for illegitimate children to date back to 18th September, 1946, whereas the allowance for step-children and adopted children may only be dated back to 1st February, 1948.
    Mr. Simmons: The new Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme incorporates all improvements which have been introduced and applied at varying times in the last few years. The different dates specified in the Order are, therefore, determined by the dates on which the particular improvements were introduced.

    Stump Socks
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Pensions whether the supply of stump socks is now adequate to meet the needs of disabled ex-Service men and of National Health Service patients who have suffered amputations.
    Mr. Simmons: During recent years, owing to the demands of the National Health Service and to certain difficulties in supply we have been able to issue only four stump socks every six months. Supplies have been so increased that in January next patients will be able to receive eight socks in one issue.
    Mr. Parkin: Has it been possible to consider the employment of disabled men in meeting this need?
    Mr. Simmons: Yes. Two hundred dozen socks per week are being manufactured in the Remploy factories, about one-third of our total supply from all sources. We may eventually double that output.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether our prisons, in which socks of high grade are made, cannot help in this matter?
    Mr. Simmons: The making of stump socks is a specialised job requiring specialised machinery. One firm has been making them for a long period of years. We have installed the machinery at Remploy factories, and they are now providing us with all the socks we need.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Private, Parachute Regiment (Sentence)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for War if 14473176 Private G. E. Watson has now been released; and to what regiment he has been transferred.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Private Watson has not yet been released. His case will be reviewed on 16th December. While held at the military corrective establishment he remains on the non-effective strength, but on his release he will be posted to the Black Watch Regiment.

    Foreign Workers
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War why the employment of European voluntary workers in the establishments administered by his Department is conditional on such persons joining a British trade union; and whether this instruction was issued by his Department.
    Mr. Shinwell: My Department, in common with employers in outside industries, discussed with the trade unions concerned, the terms, conditions and safeguards under which foreign workers should be employed and an agreement was reached. One of the conditions agreed was that the foreign workers should be selected for employment by my Department only if they were prepared to join the appropriate British trade union. This condition was included in the instruction which was issued by my Department dealing with the employment of foreign workers.
    Sir R. Glyn: Does that condition obtain in the other Service Departments, and if people are doing their work satisfactorily is it right to issue to them a letter to say that they will be discharged unless they join a union by Friday next? Is that in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot speak for other Service Departments but no doubt the hon. Member can put down a Question to them. The National Joint Advisory Council, a body comprising employers' and workers' representatives, approved the principle of the employment of foreign workers in this country, and advised that consultations should take place with a view to their membership of the appropriate trade union. The arrangement has worked very well, and so far as I know the European voluntary workers are giving satisfaction.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not just as intolerable that an employer should compel a man to join a union as that he should, as he did in earlier days, forbid him to join one? Is the Minister aware that we do not want this sort of thing in the public service? We have never had it. We can do all our own organising without any help from Ministers. This is intolerable.
    Mr. Shinwell: This arrangement is working very well and there is no reason why I should interfere with it.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that if we are to get the maximum production and the greatest harmony in industry these men should be members of the organisation responsible for making agreements between the employers and the trade unions?
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, these workers have not protested against this arrangement, and if they are quite satisfied and everything is working well, why should not we leave it alone?
    Sir R. Glyn: May I say that the only knowledge I have of this matter was a protest signed by five of these men and their friends about being forced to join this union? The local union officials do not want it.

    National Service Men
    Mr. Albert Evansasked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Service men taken into the Army during the last year or convenient period; the number who have been discharged on medical grounds; and the number who have died before their training was completed, giving separate figures for discharges and deaths due to accidents.
    Mr. Shinwell: The number of National Service men taken into the Army between 1st November, 1948, and 31st October, 1949, was 114,856. Statistics are not available to show how many of these have been discharged on medical grounds or have died before their training was completed, but in the same period a total of 5,506 National Service men were discharged on medical grounds and 229 died. Separate figures are not available for discharges and deaths due to accidents.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take all possible steps to reduce the number of unfit men taken?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are giving great care to this matter and are in close consultation with the Ministry of Labour.

    Camp, Willsworthy
    Mr. Studholmeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the prisoner-of-war camp at Willsworthy
    2498
    in the parish of Mary Tavy has now been derelict for many years; and whether he will take steps to have the unsightly buildings and rusty barbed wire removed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Willsworthy Camp, the site of which is owned by my Department, is used as a tented camp site for training. The range area is also in constant use. Certain buildings are required as permanent structures for the tented camps, but the hutting and barbed wire used for the prisoners of war cage during the war is being removed as quickly as labour can be spared from more urgent tasks.

    War Office Property, Alderney
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how muck land is owned by his Department in the island of Alderney; for what purposes it is now used; and how long he proposes retaining it;
    (2) how much land is held by his Department in the island of Alderney under D.R. 51 and D.R. 52; when was the last occasion on which it was used for training or manoeuvres; and to what extent he now proposes relinquishing these rights.
    Mr. Shinwell: My Department owns some 180 acres on the island of Alderney. Most of the property owned is let, the buildings for habitation and the land for grazing. The future of the property is still under consideration. No land is held under Defence Regulation 51 or Defence Regulation 52.
    Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent committee of the Privy Council recommended that all land that was not required should be handed over to the island so that it could be used for cultivation, and would he if possible get out of Alderney as soon as possible?
    Mr. Shinwell: We cannot give up land if we require it.

    Suez Canal Zone (Leave Centres)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities for local leave are available to British troops in the Suez Canal Zone other than to the island of Cyprus.
    Mr. Shinwell: Leave centres for British troops in the Suez Canal Zone exist at Cairo, Suez, Port Fouad, Ismailia and

    2499
    Cyprus. Individuals are also at liberty to make their own arrangements for leave.
    Dr. Segal: In view of the somewhat restricted facilities available, could not some of those camps built by us during the war in the territories of Cyrenaica, the Sudan, Aden and British Somaliland by opened up again as leave centres for these troops?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that some of those places are hardly suitable for leave centres.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not Alexandria included in the list of leave centres for troops in this area? It has many more attractions to offer than Suez to men overseas.
    Mr. Shinwell: Apparently it is not in the list I have given.

    Indian Transitional Allowance
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the hardship which will be caused by the cessation of the Indian transitional allowance on 31st March, 1950; and what steps he is proposing to take to alleviate this hardship.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Indian transitional allowance which was introduced with effect from 1st July, 1946, was a special concession designed to mitigate the effect of applying United Kingdom Income Tax rules, instead of Indian Income Tax rules and to give the officers and other ranks concerned time to adjust their budgets to the new conditions. It was given only in those ranks where the net loss of emoluments would otherwise have been unduly sudden. The rates were on a diminishing scale and it was made clear in a statement by the Prime Minister in the House on 30th May, 1946, that the allowance would cease altogether on 31st March, 1950. In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any question of hardship arising on the cessation of the allowance.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is not it a fact that when these transitional allowances were made it was expected that Income Tax would be reduced and various other expenses would be lessened for these people; and in view of that, will not the Minister reconsider this whole situation,
    2500
    because there is a very real grievance here?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. This was a special concession attributable to special circumstances relating to British officers in the Indian Army. It was made clear at the time the concession was made that it would be gradually tapered off and it is being tapered off, so that nobody can reasonably complain.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is not that causing the hardship?
    Mr. Shinwell: There are, of course, compensations on the other side in the way of a local overseas allowance.

    Photo-Printing (Private Work)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War how many members of his staff were concerned in the recent irregular performance of photo-printing work for a private firm; whether they received or were promised payment; whether any of them were associated with, or related to, a person engaged in the management of the said firm; and if he will make a full statement upon their conduct.
    Mr. Shinwell: Four members of my staff had some personal responsibility in this incident. There is no evidence that any payment was promised to any individual, or that any payment was made to anyone, apart from a sum of £2 purported to be for time worked by some subordinate employees outside normal office hours. One of the four persons introduced his brother, the managing director of the firm concerned, to the technical officer of the sub-section, with a view to his receiving some unofficial advice about photo-printing methods and equipment, but without any intention that actual printing work should be carried out. I have already made it clear that in my opinion the carrying out of the work in question was very irregular. The individuals concerned were not blameworthy to an equal degree and I am satisfied that suitable disciplinary action has been taken in each case. The value of the work done has now been paid for by the firm.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that there was

    2501
    any degree of innocence in this matter, having regard to the fact that the value of the work, as he admitted last week, was £140? Surely this is a case where someone should have been sacked, if not prosecuted?
    Mr. Shinwell: There were no degrees of innocence, but there were degrees of blame and I have acted accordingly. The payment of £115 has been made by the firm to the War Office.

    Medical Services, Malaya
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to increase the number of surgeons needed for treatment of the wounded in fighting in Malaya.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement with regard to the medical services provided for British troops in the Malayan campaign; and if he will state what improvements can be expected in the immediate future.
    Mr. Shinwell: The medical services in Malaya include an adequate number of Service hospitals and medical officers to maintain the normal health of the troops and to care for the sick and wounded. Difficulties, however, arise in securing the immediate surgical treatment of battle casualties. Since fighting is carried on by numerous small columns of troops which operate in difficult country and are frequently on the move, it is impracticable to provide surgical facilities for carrying out operations in the immediate vicinity of the fighting. Consequently it is necessary for casualties to be evacuated to the hospitals where surgical attention can be given.
    There are three Service hospitals in Malaya district, which covers the mainland of Malaya, but there is only one Army surgeon and it has accordingly been necessary to utilise the services of civil surgeons. In Singapore island there are three Service hospitals and three Army surgeons. To meet the deficiencies of surgeons in the Army as a whole, arrangements have been made to engage immediately a number of civil surgeons for short-term contracts. Three have already accepted the terms and conditions of service, and, subject to their being physically fit will be sent to the Far East
    2502
    as soon as possible to complete the establishment in that theatre.
    The evacuation of casualties presents great difficulties in view of the nature of the country and efforts have been made for a considerable time to devise a suitable means of air transport from the jungle to the nearest hospital. Various tests have been undertaken and work is now proceeding on the modification of three helicopters to make them suitable for this task. They should arrive in Malaya in April, 1950. In the meantime, the effects of delay before surgical treatment are being minimised, as far as possible by the use of penicillin and other drugs.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of Scots soldiers in Malaya; that there is great disquiet as the result of a report by a special correspondent in Malaya about the very poor surgical treatment afforded to the soldiers, and that this is causing a great deal of alarm? Could he tell us exactly how many surgeons are in Malaya itself, apart from Singapore, and will he look into the whole question, which is causing considerable disquiet?
    Mr. Shinwell: First, I must say that I make no distinction between Scots and any other class of soldier. We treat them all alike. I have looked into this matter very carefully, not without some anxiety, but there are special difficulties. First, there are difficulties in procuring the type of surgeon required who will go out to Malaya. I think that we have now got over that difficulty. As regards the general services, I agree that we have only one surgeon in this area, but there are civilian surgeons in the neighbourhood who can be made available if casualties require to be treated.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the first announcement that the War Office made was that there were seven surgeons active in the Malaya district when the establishment is only for three and there is actually only one surgeon functioning? This gives great anxiety not only to every unit out there, but also to relations in this country, and would the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to have evacuation by air before April next?
    Mr. Shinwell: The public relations department of the War Office were correct

    2503
    in the statement they made. They referred to the strength in the whole area, and that was seven. There is one in the Malaya district, three in Singapore and three in Hong Kong. They referred to the whole theatre and not to Malaya in particular. That was what was said and, so far as this was concerned, they were correct. Nevertheless, I agree that it is insufficient, but I can assure hon. Members that we are taking all possible steps to deal with the situation.
    Mr. Eden: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the helicopters? I understood last March when I was there that they were soon to be expected. Why it is that these helicopters cannot be there until next April?
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret very much that difficulty in this connection. We were promised the helicopters, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, last March or April, but unfortunately it was discovered that the type of helicopter which was to be made available was unsuitable and modifications have had to take place ever since. I cannot hope to procure them before March or April.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Are there any surgeons available in this theatre from the other two Services—the Air Force and the Navy?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say off-hand but, as I have said, there are civilian surgeons available in the neighbourhood.
    Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware, so far as the helicopter matter is concerned, that where it is a question of aid for British wounded, the fact that it has taken nearly a year to modify them is just not good enough?
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret the delay, for which we must accept responsibility. Nevertheless, it must not be assumed that the wounded are not being taken care of.
    Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise how immensely important from the point of view of the morale of the troops is this question of helicopters. Could he not tell us what is the cause of the hold-up? What Department is concerned—the Ministry of Civil Aviation or the Air Ministry or what?
    Mr. Shinwell: We were promised these helicopters by the Air Ministry. Obviously, it must be the Air Ministry. It was discovered that modifications had to take place, and it has taken some time to effect those modifications.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are not capable surgeons in the R.A.M.C. who could be flown out there at once so that, at any rate, there might be a sufficient number of surgeons able to deal with those who are wounded?
    Mr. Shinwell: First, I must emphasise that we have experienced no serious difficulty in Malaya. Attention has been drawn to the shortage of surgeons, but it must not be assumed that anything serious has resulted from that shortage, although at the same time I regret the shortage. On the question of flying surgeons from the R.A.M.C. out to Malaya, unfortunately, for some considerable time we have had to give attention to the shortage of surgeons in this country and in other theatres.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman in his first answer concentrated almost entirely on surgeons. Can he give us some idea of other medical attention available? For instance, how long does it take for the casualty to get back to a R.A.P.? Are there casualty clearing stations and advanced dressing stations? What is the general picture? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise the amount of anxiety his answer has caused.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman must not be hot and bothered about this. There is no occasion for engendering heat about it. We want to deal with this matter as speedily as possible, and that is precisely what we are endeavouring to do. As regards the availability of medical services—dressing stations and the like—I can assure the hon. Member and other hon. Members that the position is by no means unsatisfactory.
    Dr. Segal: Can my right hon. Friend say how many surgeons in this area hold consultant status; further, could he not perhaps look into the matter of offering adequate remuneration in order to procure the highest possible type of surgeon specialist to be flown out to that area?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are in fact offering excellent terms to civilian surgeons in this country. For service abroad we are offering from £1,800 to £2,200 a year, according to qualifications. In addition, they will receive a foreign service allowance and an outfit allowance. On the whole, the terms are rather good.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Owing to the neglectful attitude of the War Office in this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  FORCES, MALAYA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
  Lord John Hopeasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the granting of a general service medal to the Forces engaged in Malaya.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): This matter is at present under consideration.
  Lord John Hope: I hope the Prime Minister will realise that the country will be disappointed that no decision has yet been arrived at. Does not he agree that the granting of such an award as this would be the best way of showing the men on the spot that their country is not unmindful of their devotion to duty and is grateful for it?
  The Prime Minister: I am waiting for some information from the High Commissioner on certain aspects.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that in the past general service medals have been awarded for operations involving far less hardship and far fewer casualties than the operation in Malaya?
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter is under active consideration?
  The Prime Minister: I have already done so.

  MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS)
  Mr. Errollasked the Prime Minister if the rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1906 and reaffirmed on 16th May, 1939, relating to
  2506
  the holding of directorships in private companies by Members of the Government is still in force.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Erroll: May we take it that the recent statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has in no way altered the position?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly. It was in entire conformity.

  COMMON COLD (RESEARCH)
  Mr. John Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council if his attention has been drawn to the claims which have recently been made in the United States of America regarding the efficacy of antihistamine preparations for the treatment of the common cold; and what research has now been undertaken into the use of this drug in the United Kingdom.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The claims to which the hon. Member refers are naturally of great interest to the Medical Research Council workers who are studying the problem of the common cold at the Harvard Hospital, Salisbury. Unfortunately, a carefully controlled attempt, made last spring, to confirm the value of one of the drugs most recommended in America failed to show that it had any dramatic effect. The experiment emphasised the need for great care in assessing the claims made for cold cures, in view of the extremely variable natural duration of colds without special treatment.
  Mr. Lewis: When my right hon. Friend referred to one of the drugs that has been investigated in America, was he referring to the anti-histamine preparation mentioned in the Question; and in view of the fact that millions of man-hours are lost every year due to the effect of the common cold, which must cost the nation a great deal in terms of revenue and productivity, would he undertake that he will have investigated at all times any authentic claims which may be made in regard to the treatment of the common cold?
  Mr. Morrison: I was referring to the drug which my hon. Friend has mentioned. Certainly, we will follow up any promising line of research.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Economic Survey, 1950
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor ot the Exchequer on what date it is intended to publish an Economic Survey for 1950.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is intended that the Economic Survey for 1950, should be published about the middle of March, as was this year's Survey.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Survey take into account the possibility of a change of Government during 1950?
    Sir S. Cripps: It will take all material matters into account.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that it takes a number of weeks to get such a Survey through the printing process, especially if a General Election is in progress, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that it is done, nevertheless?

    English Journalist (Dollar Allowance)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what dollar allowance has been made available to Pam Tabberer, an English journalist, who is providing tendentious and false material for the American Press; and whether, in the interests of preserving good Anglo-American relations, he will take steps to withdraw the sums granted in this and similar cases.
    Sir S. Cripps: As ! have stated repeatedly, it would not be proper to disclose details of individual applications for foreign currency allowances made to the Bank of England under the Exchange Control Act, 1947.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an abuse of the facilities granted by the Treasury to facilitate visits to the United States for silly women like Pam Tabberer and others to go over there and traduce and denounce this country on the other side of the Atlantic?

    Purchase Tax (Greeting Cards)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the separate total yields from Purchase Tax on Christmas and New Year cards for the
    2508
    years 1946, 1947 and 1948; and what is the estimated yield for 1949.
    Sir S. Cripps: Christmas, New Year and other greeting cards, form part of more than one Purchase Tax class. It is not possible to sort them out for the purpose of giving the figures of yield asked for in the first part of the Question. But receipts from all kinds of greeting cards may be estimated on the present basis at about £3½ million.
    Mr. Erroll: Does the Chancellor realise that this taxation of Christmas good will is abhorrent, and will he take steps to ensure that a future Budget will eliminate this form of taxation?
    Sir S. Cripps: Judging by the number of cards purchased every year, that cannot be so.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that his recent decision to increase the Purchase Tax on many of next year's Christmas cards will cast undeserved opprobrium on the Conservative Government which will then be in power?
    Sir S. Cripps: It would be impossible to cast undeserved opprobrium.

    Entertainments Duty (Plays)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plays at present running at London theatres are exempt from Entertainments Duty under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946.
    Sir S. Cripps: The following plays at present running at London theatres, being promoted by bodies which qualify for exemption from Entertainments Duty under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, are exempt: "The Beaux' Stratagem," "Death of a Salesman," "The Golden Door," "The Heiress," "Hindle Wakes," "The Lady's not for Burning," "Love's Labour's Lost," "The Seagull," "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Treasure Hunt."
    Mr. Wilson Harris: While I have no objection to the last named play in the list, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really satisfied that all these plays need the substantial financial assistance which he is giving them?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied that they come within the provision which was laid down by Parliament.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a comparison between the list which he has just read out and a list of the plays which are not tax exempt, completely vindicates this system of tax exemption, and that, if the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) is not careful, I will read out the alternative list?
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask the Chancellor whether the theatre-goer is being relieved? Is there a drop in price in regard to exemption from Entertainments Duty, or is the Entertainments Duty swept into the "non-profits" pool?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Boothby: Will the Chancellor look into the administration of this Section of the Finance Act before the introduction of the next Budget?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am perfectly satisfied with the administration; I have looked into it many times.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: In regard to "A Streetcar Named Desire," if it gives rise to "An Autobus named Salacity" or "An Aeroplane named Lascivious," will the right hon. and learned Gentleman claim that this is really cultural education and say that we can now withdraw from U.N.E.S.C.O.?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should not like to forecast the cultural value of plays which have not yet been written.

    Overtime Earnings (Taxation)
    Mr. J. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the annual sum which would be lost to the Inland Revenue were no Income Tax to be paid on overtime earnings; and the extent by which this loss would be offset as a result of increased production because of the greater incentive created.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that this information is not available.
    Mr. Lewis: Might it not be well if the Chancellor were to tax his ingenuity in order to devise some method whereby it might be possible for productivity to be
    2510
    increased as a result of the alleviation of the tax on overtime?
    Sir S. Cripps: Looking at the matter quite objectively, I think my ingenuity is sufficiently taxed already.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, in fact, if he did what is proposed in the Question, the tendency would not be for everybody to work overtime and nobody to work during the daytime?
    Sir S. Cripps: That may be so.

    Payments to Directors (Taxation)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now formally indicate his intention that he will introduce into his next Budget a provision whereby payments made to directors of companies in consideration of their agreement not to become directors of other companies, will be treated as income, and not as a capital payment.
    Sir S. Cripps: As my right hon. Friend explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 24th November, I am looking into this matter, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I hoped that he could anticipate that he will himself be making the next Budget statement; and, secondly, in all these circumstances would he not consider setting up a committee to inquire into tax evasion?

    Electoral Registers
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further cut is proposed in national expenditure to compensate for the discovery that the annual saving to the Exchequer from reducing the number of electoral registers from two to one will be £650,000, not £800,000.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Further economy in Government expenditure generally is being pursued irrespective of any reductions already announced in specific services.
    Mr. Keeling: As the Government have made three shots at this estimate already—first £800,000, then £400,000 and now £650,000—and as it is clear that some

    2511
    other estimates—for instance, the yield from the shilling tax on prescriptions—will be very far out, does he think that there is any chance of the total saving from cuts being realised?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that a variation of £150,000 in £280 million is very excessive.

    Republic of Ireland (Sterling Balances)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he anticipates that the recent officially-announced change of policy by the Government of the Irish Republic, as regards their position as a member of the sterling group, will affect this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not clear what official statement the hon. Member has in mind; but if he is referring to the recent speech by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic I have nothing to add to the reply given on 1st December to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher).
    Professor Savory: If the proposal is to withdraw sterling balances, may I ask the Chancellor whether he has called the attention of the Government of Eire to the losses which this country sustained in providing for their defence by means of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, whereas Eire's withholding of the use of the ports caused the loss of thousands of lives and innumerable tons of shipping?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is a hypothetical question which I am afraid I could not answer.

    Central Office of Information (Leaflet)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the scale of distribution of a leaflet issued by the Central Office of Information entitled, "What's all this?"; how many copies have been printed; to whom they have been distributed; and what is the cost to public funds.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Member is presumably referring to the leaflet "For Women Only." The print order is for one million copies at an estimated cost of
    2512
    £1,800. The main distribution is through women's voluntary organisations but copies are also being made available through the regional offices of the Central Office of Information, who are paying particular attention to the needs of housewives and women in industry.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that this document is also being distributed to the women's Services on the basis of one copy per woman, and is not that an excessive distribution?

    War Damage Payments, Liverpool
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much has been paid out in war damage in the City of Liverpool to owners of privately-owned damaged sites; how much has been paid to the local authority for war damage; and how far the. payments include clearance of sites where necessary.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The following amounts have been paid to the local authority: For repairs to war damaged houses, £6,718,000; for demolition and clearance, £1,407,604; for war damage to highways, £146,845. No separate records are kept of war damage payments to private owners in particular areas.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that the leader of the Conservative Party in the Liverpool City Council says that they have no way of getting money from the Government in order to clear sites in the Liverpool area?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This, of course, should enlighten them.

  COTTON INDUSTRY
  Mr. J. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the interests of improving the output in the cotton industry, he will consider extending the benefits of the Cotton Subsidy Act to smaller units which make specialised types of goods and which are therefore not in a position to amalgamate.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act, 1948, is designed not only to encourage modernisation in cotton spinning mills but also to secure a measure of consolidation in the industry.

  2513
  The Act is administered as flexibly as is possible without the sacrifice of this twofold purpose. I appreciate that mills engaged in a specialised type of production may find it difficult to qualify, and if my hon. Friend has any particular group of mills in mind I would be pleased to look into the case.
  Mr. Lewis: In view of the experience which my hon. Friend's Department has already had in regard to this matter, he must know that consolidation is extremely difficult; and in view of this fact would he reconsider the whole question in order to see if efficiency can be brought to bear by allowing the benefits under this Act to apply to smaller units?
  Mr. Osborne: Could the Minister tell the House how many groups are amalgamated under this Act?
  Mr. Bottomley: Not without notice, but, generally, I would reply again that we are prepared to look at any case which any hon. Member wishes to draw to our attention. We encourage it.
  Mr. Austin: Is it not a fact that a concession has already been made in relation to this Act whereby instead of the 400,000 grouping, a grouping of 250,000 is admitted for the benefits of the subsidy?
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir, that is true.

  EXCHEQUER BONDS (CONVERSION)
  Mr. Oliver Stanley(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the conversion of the 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds.
  Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. On 2nd December I announced the conversion offer for £787 million of 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds and stated that the offer would close last night. Approximately £723 million out of the total of £787 million has been tendered for conversion. This does not include conversions of Exchequer Bonds on the Bank of Ireland or Post Office registers which are, however, quite small in amount. I am sure the House will be glad to know of this highly satisfactory result.
  Mr. Stanley: When the Chancellor announced this conversion, I expressed, I
  2514
  think on behalf of all hon. Members, the hope that it would be successful. I am sure I am doing the same now in saying that I am glad that it has been successful.
  Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: Would the Chancellor inform the House what percentage of the £723 million which has been tendered for conversion was held by Government Departments or by public corporations under Government control.
  Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, that is never done.

ELECTRICAL POWER INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
Mr. Eden Mr. Eden (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make about the dispute in the electrical power industry.
Mr. Isaacs: I regret to inform the House that at a meeting today the men employed at the Barking Power Station have decided to strike this afternoon. The Government are taking all necessary steps to maintain essential supplies, but the House will understand that load shedding may be inevitable in the circumstances. Service men are already carrying out essential duties at the three Power Stations which stopped work yesterday.
I would remind the men on strike that their action not only results in a breach of contract with their employers, and endangers the interests of the country, but is also a breach of loyalty to their trade union leaders who, in the course of negotiations extending over many months, secured for the majority of the workers in the industry a standard hitherto enjoyed only by the minority. No man will suffer any money loss. The Chairman of the trade union side of the Joint Industrial Council has issued a statement which sets out fairly the facts and circumstances that have led to the present position. With permission of the House, I will circulate a textual copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
There is no doubt where the men's duty lies. They should return to work at once and leave it to the joint machinery of the industry to deal with any point requiring settlement.
Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a very

2515
serious situation which has developed. Can he give us any more information than is in his answer about what load shedding will be necessary? It is clearly of the greatest importance that everybody should know what the position is likely to be. Secondly, may I ask what steps, if any, are being taken to bring before the men this information which is to be made available for us in the Vote Office?
Mr. Isaacs: So far as the extent of load shedding is concerned, it is impossible to give any definite indication, but up to now the Service men already installed in the stations are carrying out a satisfactory job, and I am sure that the House and the country are grateful to them. With reference to the statement, it is too long to read to the House, but I can say that the several unions are making every effort to make the facts known to their members. It may be that because the statement which the unions can make is such a satisfactory one somebody decided that it was just as well to call a strike before the men had the statement. The unions are certainly doing their best to draw the attention of their members to the need for using the constitutional machinery and to the danger to that machinery which will follow their action.
Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any arrangements are being made for this statement to be given out to the men at the works?
Mr. Isaacs: This statement was issued rather late last night by the unions and therefore I think that neither the Press nor the B.B.C. had an opportunity to deal with it in its entirety, and that only the main point was covered. However, I understand that the Federation concerned, through the President, are taking steps to bring these facts home to their members.
Mr. Henry Strauss: In addition to the matters which the right hon. Gentleman is bringing to the notice of the men, is it not fair in their own interests that he should also bring to their notice the fact that they are apparently committing a criminal offence?
Mr. Isaacs: Their attention is drawn to the fact that their action is a breach of contract.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Can we have the assurance of the Minister—whose difficulties we realise—that this is not the beginning of another dockers' strike where we shall be having statements day after day which will possibly drag on for one, two or three weeks? If this thing can be settled in three weeks' time, cannot it be settled right away? Can we avoid the repetition of the dockers' strike?
Mr. Isaacs: Obviously, everybody concerned will endeavour to get a settlement, but we cannot just force men into a settlement. Every effort that can be made by persuasion to bring the facts home to them will be made.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was the Minister's attention recently drawn to a week-end * speech by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in which he talked about the Tory Party giving men the right to strike?
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this strike at all.
Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister give an assurance that these negotiations will not take place with any body other than the recognised trade unions to which these men belong?
Mr. Isaacs: I can give a very definite assurance that there will be no negotiations by the Government with any body except the trade unions.
Mr. Osborne: Can any action be taken against the men who fomented this trouble which is obviously against the best interests of the men and the trade unions concerned?
Following is the statement:
The strike action taken by the manual workers at Brimsdown, Littlebrook and Taylor's Lane Power Stations of the British Electricity Authority has come at a critical stage in the negotiations for payments to meet their special conditions.
The National Joint Industrial Council for the Electricity Supply Industry has been working at extreme pressure to resolve as quickly as possible those difficulties arising from the recent wages agreement awarding 1½ d. per hour to all manual workers, although it was agreed that the 1½ d. per hour should merge in any excess payment that was not justified, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the national agreement. No worker within the industry has a smaller wage packet than hitherto but a small percentage of the workers in the industry have had their plus differential

2517
between themselves and workers of a similar craft reduced, because the majority of the workers have been brought nearer to the standard enjoyed by the minority.
In the case of the three Stations, every employee was in receipt of a percentage addition to the national rate of his grade, irrespective of whether the individual was working under conditions abnormal to the industry or not.
The recent agreement and the one to which the workers have evidently taken exception, made provision for l½ d. an hour increase in the basic wage for all workers to merge into the percentage addition, but it left open for negotiations to be conducted for those working under conditions abnormal to the industry to increase this l½ d. to at least 2d. per hour.
The Chairmen and Secretaries of the Employees Side of the Works Committee of Brimsdown, Littlebrook, Barking and Taylor's Lane Power Stations were given the opportunity on Friday, 2nd December, to meet their national trade union leadership. Here they were able to submit additional factual material for proposed negotiations with the Authority to retain those bonus payments which had previously been made.
A special meeting of the Negotiating Committee was held on Tuesday, 6th December, when despite the material and facts then in the hands of the officials, the trade unions were again unable to substantiate the continued payment of plus payments in their old form, but stress was laid on the provision in the agreement relating to abnormal conditions, and the Works Committees were advised to negotiate on this basis. I understand that certain discussions have taken place at works level.
A meeting had been arranged for Thursday next, 15th December, at which the largest possible representation from the men involved would have been able to meet their national leaders. A full report was to have been made to them of the negotiations to date and details given of how it would be possible under the conditions now operating in the Power Stations where they work, to make a successful claim for extra payments.
Various payments for abnormal conditions obtain in the industry from a minimum of 1d. plus adequate protective clothing up to time-and-a-half of the worker's normal hourly rate.
A special meeting of the National Council is to be held tomorrow (Tuesday, 13th December) but I feel justified in saying that the strike is to be regretted and cannot possibly have the support of any trade unionist who is prepared to at least allow the normal negotiating procedure to function, before a decision was reached that the negotiating machinery cannot adequately cater for the workers within a given industry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether any changes are to be made in the Business for this week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We desire today to take the Lords Amendments to the Electoral Registers Bill, after the completion of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] and before the other Business already announced for consideration.
Tomorrow, at the beginning of Business, we shall ask the House to consider the Lords Amendments to the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Bill and to the War Damaged Sites Bill.
On Thursday, at the beginning of Business, we propose to take Amendments, which are expected to be received from another place, to the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill, to the Festival of Britain Bill, and to any other Bills.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the fact that there is now a good deal of Business for Thursday, will my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule?
Mr. Morrison: I would like to very much, but we are in the difficulty that an Order of some importance follows which may lead to fairly substantial Debate, and, whilst I am keeping the matter under review, I do not think it will work out as a possibility.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now afford some time to the House for the discussion of the gross and palpable misstatement about the law relating to corrupt practices made by himself and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General?
Mr. Morrison: I thought that both my right hon. and learned Friend and I had been as helpful as we could be.
Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement was wholly misleading to this House?

STANDING COMMITTEE E (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)
Mr. Speaker: I have been asked to make a correction to my statement, dated 5th December—HANSARD, columns 1539–42—regarding Commander Powell. I wish to make it clear that the post held by this gentleman is that of Administrative Secretary of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Secretary-General of that Union is of

2519
course, M. Leopold Boissier, head of the Bureau at Geneva. I did not on 5th December make or intend any imputation against the British Group of the Union, or cast any reflection on the valuable work they perform. Furthermore, I believe the members of the British Group would wish me to say that Commander Powell has served the Group with efficiency and zeal since he was appointed Administrative Secretary.
The point of my statement on 5th December was that undesirable or unfair results might arise from this particular post being held by anyone doing professional work for Members of the House and at the same time work for outside organisations or bodies who may be
concerned with opposing or promoting various items of Parliamentary business, and not that any such undesirable or unfair results have in fact ensued. I am informed that Commander Powell has asked permission to resign his position of Administrative Secretary to the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

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)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 99.

Division No. 303.]

AYES

[3.45 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Daggar, G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Daines, P.

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

Albu, A. H.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, SW)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Janner, B.

Amterson, F. (Whitehaven)

Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

Jay, D. P T.

Attewell, H. G.

Deer, G.

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

Aitlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Delargy, H. J

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Austin, H. Lewis

Dobbie, W.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Awbery, S. S.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Ayles, W. H

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Keenan, W.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Dumpleton, C. W.

Kenyon, C.

Bacon, Miss A

Dye, S.

King, E. M

Balfour, A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.

Kinley, J.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Lang, G.

Barton, C.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lavers, S.

Battley, J. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Lee, F. (Hulnte)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Berry, H.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Leonard, W.

Beswick, F.

Ewart, R.

Leslie, J. R.

Bing, G. H. C.

Farthing, W, J

Levy, B. W.

Binns, J.

Fernyhough, E.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Blackburn, A. R.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Lipson, D. L.

Blyton, W. R.

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

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Boardman, H.

Foot, M. M.

Logan, D. G.

Bottomley, A. G

Forman, J. C.

Longden, F.

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

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Lyne, A. W.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

McAdam, W.

Bramall, E. A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McEntee, V. La T

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

McGhee, H. G

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Ganley, Mrs. C S.

McGovern, J

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gibbins, J.

Mack, J. D.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Gilzean, A.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

McLeavy, F.

Burden, T. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Burke, W. A.

Grey, C. F.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Byers, Frank

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Callaghan, James

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Carmichael, James

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Chamberlain, R. A

Hale, Leslie

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Champion, A. J.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Chafer, D.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Chetwynd, G. R

Harrison, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Cluse, W. S.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

Mikardo, Ian

Colman, Miss G. M

Herbison, Miss M.

Monslow, W.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hobson, C. R.

Moody, A. S.

Cook, T. F.

Holmes, H. E, (Hemsworth)

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

Corlett, Dr. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Moyle, A.

Cove, W. G.

Hoy, J.

Murray, J. D.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

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

Naylor, T. E.

Cullon. Mrs.

Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

Sargood, R

Turner-Samuels, M

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

Scollan, T.

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Scott-Elliot, v.

Viant. S. P.

Oldfield, W. H

Segal, Dr. S.

Walker, G. H

Orbaeh, M.

Shackleton, E A. A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

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

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

Pannell, T. C.

Shurmer, P.

Warbey, W. N

Parker, J.

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Watkins, T E.

Parkin, B. T.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Simmons, C. J.

Weitzman, D.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Pearson, A.

Skinnard, F. W.

West, D. G.

Peart, T. F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

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

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

Popplewell, E.

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Sparks, J. A.

Wigg, George

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Steele, T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Pryde, D. J

Stokes, R. R.

Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

Randall, H. E.

Sylvester, G. 0.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)

Ranger, J

Symonds, A. L.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Rankin, J.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Rhodes, H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Woods, G. S

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wyatt, W.

Robens, A.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Yates, V. F.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Thurtle, Ernest

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Tiffany, S

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Tolley, L.

Mr. Hannon and Mr. Bowden.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

NOES

Agnew, Cmcr P. G.

Glyn, Sir R

Odey, G. W

Amory, D. Heathooat

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Osborne, C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Gridley, Sir A. '

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Baldwin, A. E

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Baxter, A. B.

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Head, Brig. A. H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Boles, Lt.-Col. O. C. (Wills)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Raikes, H. V.

Boothby, R

Hollis, M. C.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Bower, N.

Hope, Lord J.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.

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

Sanderson, Sir F

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Channon, H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Langford-Holt, J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Clifton-Brown, 'Lt.-Col. G.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H

Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Linstead, H. N.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Studholme, H. G.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wig )

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

De la Bé re, R.

McFarlane, C. S.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Digby, S. Wingfield

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

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

MacLeod, J

Touche, G. C.

Dower., E. L. G. (Caithness)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Turton, R. H.

Drayson, G. B.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Duthie., W. S.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Erroll, F. J.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

York, C.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

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

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Brigadier Mackeson and

Colonel Wheatley.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [Lords]
  Order read for consideration, as amended.
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 16, page 13, line 32, and Schedule 4, page 56, line 22, standing on the Notice iPaper in the name of Mr. Ede,
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Clause 16. —(ESTABLISHMENT OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Ede): I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five."
  This carries out an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to a Debate originated by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). It will bring into this category the non-county boroughs of Stockton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Hove, Swindon and Chesterfield, all of which are above 65,000. The next borough below that figure has a population of over 57,000 so that there will be no point in dropping the figure to 60,000. I think it is desirable that these magistrates' courts committees which are to be established in these non-county boroughs should, as far as possible, have the assurance that they will get a full-time clerk. I think, therefore, that we should keep the figure as high as possible.
  Mr. Marlowe: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the request I made to him on this matter during the Committee stage. When I moved the Amendment which stood in my name on that occasion I was interested only in the non-county borough of Hove, and although the fact that one or two others have fortuitously fallen into the same group is a good thing for them, I must say that I was not in the least concerned in any other place except Hove, to which I referred on that occasion. As I then pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, there was a particular
  2524
  problem in relation to Hove, especially having regard to the fact that although the borough has a population of 69,000 a population of 85,000 is catered for by the Hove court. In those circumstances I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting me on that point. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the freedom of the borough of Hove is not in my gift, but I will do my best for him.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Fourth Schedule. —(CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 56, line 22, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five." This is consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.
  New Clause. —(JUSTICES' CLERKS EXAMINATION BOARDS.)

  (1) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Law Society set up a Justices' Clerks Examination Board.

  (2) The said board shall, in accordance with rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor, be responsible for holding examinations for the purpose of examining candidates desiring to qualify as justices' clerks.

  (3) Such rules shall require any candidate to satisfy the examiners as to his proficiency in such subjects as the Lord Chancellor shall determine are required to be known by a justices' clerk, including criminal law, evidence and procedure and general principles of law.

  (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty of this Act a person who has satisfied the examiners in such examination as aforesaid shall be eligible for appointment as a justices' clerk.—[Mr. Marlowe.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I do not want to repeat at length the arguments which we considered very fully, I think, when this Bill was in the Committee stage.
  Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to Clause 20, which I regard as an alternative to

  2525
  the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward, and I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House for us to take both discussions together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am in the hands of the House. I agree to that suggestion, if there is no objection.
  Mr. Marlowe: I agree that the two proposals should be discussed together. The argument in favour of not having the ordinary solicitors' qualifications were canvassed extensively on the last occasion by hon. Members on both sides of the House. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) dealing with the question of abandoning the solicitors' examination altogether. In that discussion it became apparent that the Government were not prepared to retreat fully from the standard required of qualifying as a solicitor or a barrister, and I am disappointed with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has today suggested as a compromise.
  The view which I now put forward is that if it is not possible to accept the idea that there should be no solicitors' qualification at all, then at least something on the lines I have suggested ought to be accepted as providing the necessary standard which a justices' clerk ought to possess. My main objection to the qualification under the solicitors' examination was that it involved the justices' clerk, or the assistant justices' clerk who is endeavouring to become a justices' clerk, in taking his mind and his training off the essential part of his task and compelled him to devote a considerable amount of his time to subjects which would have no interest to him whatever when he came to discharge his functions in court. As everyone knows, the solicitors' qualification requires an extensive knowledge of conveyancing and the law of property and those are not matters in which the clerk will have any interest when he comes to sit below the justices.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Under the Amendment which is to be proposed by the Home Secretary there will be no need for any other qualification than that of the law relating to the clerkship.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not think the hon. and learned Member understands the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Order Paper. The new suggestion of the Home Secretary is that a justices' clerk needs to qualify as a solicitor in every respect other than that of service of articles. That is the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I will deal with that proposal in a moment. I want to deal first with my own Amendment, which suggests an entirely different examination. I was pointing out that when we accept either standard—either that which we had before, that of qualifying fully as a solicitor, or the standard suggested in the Amendment on the Order Paper today—we shall still compel the candidate who is endeavouring to qualify as a justices' clerk to devote a large part of his time and his training to subjects which are not necessary for him in the efficient discharge of his duties.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Such as?
  Mr. Marlowe: As I said before, conveyancing and the law of property. I do not think justices' clerks need to know those subjects to carry out their job efficiently. They make the examinations extremely difficult, and a lot of people find it hard to pass. I do not know whether I am, perhaps, retaining some resentment from my youth against those examinations, but I know that I hated them both and that I found them extremely difficult, and it may be that I have not got rid of the hatred I had for them.
  4.0 p.m.
  I can sympathise with the younger men now who have to try to pass them, and I would save these men from the necessity of passing them. If they are required to pass those examinations it seems to me that they are required to devote a large part of their training to them at the expense of training for the job they ought to learn and the things they ought to know—that is, the principles of criminal law, the administration of courts, the rules of evidence and of procedure. Those are the matters which are most important to a justices' clerk. I am not suggesting that there are not other matters also that are important to him, but I would say that those were the ones in which it was most necessary to qualify.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? As he knows, in the case of justices' clerks the essentials can be obtained in preparation for the preliminary examinations. The intermediate is really on the general principles of law, which are referred to in the new Clause. Has it occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman that what he is proposing will do great harm to justices' clerks? It will mean that they will be trained only for the job of a justices' clerk, and will be limited to that extent, and that they will never have a chance of going into private practice if they want to.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not think those arguments are any good at all. We have accepted the principle that in certain circumstances men may continue to be justices' clerks though they are not qualified. I have forgotten the second suggestion the hon. Gentleman put forward.
  Mr. Hale: They will not be able to practise.
  Mr. Marlowe: If a man wants to go into private practice there is nothing to prevent him from taking the qualifying examination. I would not make it necessary for him to take that examination in training for the job of a justices' clerk. If he wants to do both, to be a solicitor and a justices' clerk, he can be trained as a solicitor, and I have no objection to his qualifying for both.
  Mr. Hale: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman train people especially to be High Court judges, and so follow the line of his argument throughout?
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not really think the hon. Gentleman is doing justice to my argument. I am not suggesting and have never suggested that this type of examination, of which I speak in my new Clause, would be suitable to persons occupying high judicial office. I have never suggested anything so far-fetched as that. I am dealing only with the question of justices' clerks. It is idle to argue that we must have men highly qualified in the law to be justices' clerks when we have admitted the principle of having unqualified men in the job. In practically all the big industrial towns, the most crowded areas, where the task of the justices' clerk is, probably, most important, because in those courts there
  2528
  are a vast number of cases and a varying programme of cases almost daily, so that the clerks have to switch their minds from one sort of subject to another in the course of only one sitting—there are men, it is admitted, who shall remain.
  I agree that my argument would be considerably reduced in force if we accepted the principle that every clerk has to be qualified, but as things stand at the moment that will not be the case until 1960 and afterwards; there are 10 years, at least, before that even begins to be a reality. There are young men who have the ambition to become justices' clerks and who may be permitted to become so by showing themselves proficient in the task.
  I confess I have no evidence for it, but one has the impression, when one views the number of justices' clerks who are unqualified at the present time, and views them against the background of the living which qualified men can make, that it is extremely unlikely that we shall get the number of clerks we need to fill the posts. It will lead to many difficulties, and particularly to the one I emphasised the other day, that we shall tend only to get the man who is not a successful solicitor. It is most undesirable that we should have that type of man. I would far sooner have the kind who made the work of justices' clerk his living and became qualified for it in some such way as I have suggested, rather than a man who started with the ambition of becoming a solicitor, and, because he failed, turned to being a justices' clerk for the sake of a safe post where he could receive a regular income.
  I want to deal with the suggestion made in the Government Amendment, which I do not think is satisfactory. I assume, as it appears on the Order Paper, that it must be acceptable to the Law Society, but I must say I am surprised that the Law Society should have permitted themselves to join in this sort of Amendment, because I, frankly, think it undesirable that a man should qualify without serving his articles. This suggestion, as it were, reverses the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) when he interrupted me a moment ago. According to this proposal, we are going to do nothing to prevent the man of what I called in our last Debate "devalued qualification" using it

  2529
  in the full exercise of the solicitors' profession, and nothing to prevent him from becoming qualified as a solicitor and, in the process, a justices' clerk. He can pass this somewhat emasculated solicitors' examination without serving any articles at all, and when he becomes qualified as a justices' clerk there will be no power to limit his activities to that work.
  Therefore, there will be created a kind of solicitor who has not had the advantages of having to train for the examinations and has not had to serve his articles, which I think is a very important part of the training of a solicitor, for it is that period of serving the articles that a man who is endeavouring to pass the examination spends in his solicitor's office, and it is in that period that he acquires the status and the standard of honour which the profession requires, and the experience which he needs when he sets out on his own account. I believe that part of training in the legal profession to be of immense importance, and I think it most regrettable that a Government Amendment should propose a means whereby there will be created a kind of solicitor who has not gone through the proper training and the full programme of training which the profession has heretofore demanded.
  The practice of the law demands, apart from knowledge, many other things. It demands a standard of honour particularly, which can only be acquired by long association with those who have practised it. It would be most regrettable if we were to create a new type of solicitor—that is to say, one who has taken this somewhat easier examination, and has not gone through the process of being articled to a man of experience, as has been the practice heretofore. Therefore, I do not find the Government Amendment satisfactory. I should prefer to make an entirely new approach to the training and qualification of justices' clerks, abandoning the idea that they should qualify as solicitors, and, instead, making arrangements whereby men can qualify for the job of justices' clerk.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I beg to second the Motion.
  I do not wish to be drawn into an argument between lawyers about the merits of the particular form of examination which is needed, but during my
  2530
  hon. and learned Friend's speech I was rather struck with the fact that, as far as I can understand, there ought not to be a too complicated examination for this purpose. I see that the Home Secretary is in one of his mellow moods today, and I believe that he and I have this much in common: that although we realise that some examinations are necessary, we both think that real experience, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, is most necessary for this and for many other types of work. T am not yet prepared to say whether this new Clause or the Home Secretary's Amendment would be best for the purpose. I shall decide that for myself when I have heard both sides. But I welcome the fact that apparently the Home Secretary is prepared to meet this request in some way.
  Mr. Ede: Let me remind the House of how we have got into this position. We had a long and rather complicated argument about this matter in Committee on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Cor-lett), who withdrew his Amendment on an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend that this matter would be considered. We felt there was a great deal of substance in the arguments adduced in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and we were very anxious to meet it, although I think that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has this afternoon rather receded from some of the arguments that he advanced against us in Committee.
  We take the view that it is desirable that, within a reasonable space of time, every justices' clerk should be qualified. I take that view as a lay magistrate very strongly. When I am sitting on the bench endeavouring to discharge my oath as a magistrate, I think that I should have skilled advice on which I can rely from the professional adviser to the court, particularly when I have adduced in front of me an argument by two trained lawyers. It is very essential that I should feel I have a right to rely on the advice that is being tendered to me as being skilled.
  We are then faced with two, and perhaps three, difficulties. In the first place, there is the fact that we have a

  2531
  substantial number of men who have served as justices' clerks for some years, and who have by experience acquired a competence in the matter that we cannot ignore. I cannot imagine I shall be reproached by hon. Members opposite if I say that we feel bound to respect the vested interests of these men in the calling they have been following. It would be grossly unfair to wipe them out at the moment, and we have therefore said that there shall be a limited time during which this matter will arise; there shall be a date beyond which no fresh appointments of unqualified people shall be made. By an Amendment we have put down we propose to make that date 1st January, 1960, so as to give ample time for other people to be qualified.
  4.15 p.m.
  One of the things that rather amazed me before was that my hon. Friend the Member for York should be in favour of any Amendment that recognised unqualified people in any profession, for he and I, as members of the National Union of Teachers, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), have spent a great part of our lives declaiming against the unqualified people in our own profession, and we were always met with precisely the arguments that we were met with the other night: first, that we have got these people, and that they are the victims of a system; and secondly, if we get rid of them where are we to get the others from? Now, precisely those problems confront us here: Where are we to get the properly qualified clerks from?
  We had a proposal that would have relied upon only solicitors and barristers entering their respective professions through the existing means being the people from whom the choice would be made. Then we were faced with the problem that was put by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), and I think endorsed by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, that there would be in the offices of the present unqualified clerks a number of assistants, who might be men of parts, who were perfectly capable of qualifying as solicitors, but who because they were not employed
  2532
  by a solicitor, could not serve their articles.
  When I looked at the Act I was rather astonished to see the ring fence that the solicitors' profession has managed to put round itself. The man employed in the magistrates' clerk's office cannot find some friendly solicitor in the neighbourhood who would enable that clerk to read with him, and things like that, because the man must have no other employment but that of the solicitor to whom he is articled. That meant that the men who are now in these offices would never be able to qualify, although some of them may be quite suitable young men, who I imagine all of us would like to see acting as justices' clerks.
  The hon. and learned Member for Brighton also said on the last occasion that he did not want to debase the solicitor's certificate. I am thoroughly with him in that. But neither do I want to train up a number of men into a blind alley occupation. After all, what the hon. and learned Member's new Clause does is to say that certain people shall be trained as justices' clerks, and their training shall fit them for nothing else but being justices' clerks. Let us suppose that for some reason or another, perhaps physical infirmity, they cannot carry on as justices' clerks but would not be debarred from acting as solicitors if they were qualified. Surely it would be a matter of great hardship if, owing to the way in which they were admitted to this post, they were debarred from carrying on any other professional occupation.
  Mr. Marlowe: I have not suggested that this should be exclusive. It is additional to Clause 20. I have no objection at all to their qualifying as solicitors as well if they wish to.
  Mr. Ede: But the hon. and learned Member wants them to qualify as solicitors in the ordinary way. I think I have already dealt with that phase of his argument.
  I object to people being trained in narrow specialist groups. I am quite sure that in the experience of every magistrate here there are occasions when, even in the most humdrum magistrates' court, one comes up against some point quite unexpectedly where a width of experience and training on the part of the person

  2533
  who has to advise the magistrate is of the very greatest advantage. Perhaps I speak with some feeling, because more than once I have had to preside over the Petty Sessions at Epsom on the day after the Derby, and if the gentlemen who then appeared in front of me could not think up some fresh intricate point with which to befog the bench it was a poor morning. There are other matters that unexpectedly crop up in which wide reading, knowledge and training are of advantage to the person who has to advise the bench.
  After the House adjourned the other night, I gave instructions to those who advise me that we should endeavour to meet leading solicitors and representatives of the Justices' Clerks Society to see if we could not find some means by which the people in the justices' clerks offices, who at present are debarred by the Solicitors Act from obtaining their full qualifications, could have an opportunity of qualifying. I must say that the first reaction of these people was not very friendly. I do not think they will object to my saying that everyone appears to be in favour of his own closed shop. It was not easy to get them to agree; but they are very anxious to secure that at some time or other the requirements for qualified persons shall become operative; and it is quite clear that some such arrangement as that enshrined in my Amendment will become necessary. We can put the date 1960 in the Bill, and grey-headed people like myself can say, "Thank goodness, that means that we shall not have to deal with this problem when it arises."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: There will not be a Socialist Government then.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a prophet. As a native of Epsom, I never argue with prophets because, in my experience, when the numbers go up on the board the prophets are generally contradicted. Whatever Government may be in office in 1960, unless some arrangement is made by which the people in these offices can get their qualification as enacted, they will be faced with the fact that they will have to pass some Amendment to secure that the date shall again be postponed. I think that is dishonest legislation. I believe that qualification should be demanded. I believe that the people in the existing offices cannot be
  2534
  disturbed because we have allowed them to grow up under the conditions of the existing law, but I am concerned for the young men in the offices who will have to face the time when a qualification can be demanded.
  The solicitors to whom I spoke were leading members of the Law Society, but clearly they cannot bind the Law Society, although they undertook, at a meeting of the governing body of the society which is to be held on Friday, to stand by what they arranged with me. After a very long consultation and drafting conversation, which went on to a late hour last night, we managed to arrive at the Amendment on the Order Paper, subject to one small manuscript Amendment which I do not think it is essential to mention on this discussion of general principle.
  I think that these leading solicitors and the representatives of the Justices' Clerks Society faced this issue in a thoroughly practical spirit, and they have enabled the Government to come before the House with an Amendment that is workable, that secures that existing holders of the office of an unqualified justices' clerk shall not be disturbed, that their assistants shall not suffer from the grave disability that they cannot qualify, and that enables us to feel that at the time when this matter becomes fully operative there will be a sufficient reservoir of qualified people on which to* draw.
  There was one thing that the hon. and learned Member said on which I cannot profess to express an expert opinion. He expressed the view that the salaries likely to be paid would be unattractive and that we should get left with the failures of the profession. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), who referred to me as Jezebel the other night, and who now appears to have gone off to find the dogs with which to have me devoured, said that one solicitor in his family had earned more than five other brothers put together. I was assured, when I discussed this matter yesterday with the Law Society, that they did not think that the salaries offered for full-time justices' clerks were likely to be unattractive, and they thought there would be reasonable competition among competent men who would prefer that sort of life.

  2535
  This represents, as I hope the hon. and learned Member for Brighton will agree, a genuine effort on the part of the Government to meet the arguments which were adduced against us the other night. It does enable us, although we postpone the date by five years, to feel that there will come a time when the justices will have the advantage of being advised in court by a qualified clerk. I ask the House to reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's new Clause, and, for the purpose of dealing with this problem which we are both trying to solve, to adopt the Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper to Clause 20.
  I should like to express my particular thanks to the representatives of the solicitors whom I saw yesterday on this matter, because they met a very difficult and practical point in a spirit of co-operation and with a desire to ensure that the principles which I have enunciated in the course of this speech should be made practical of enactment as the law of the land.
  Mr. Corlett: I regret that I cannot support the hon. and learned Member in the new Clause he is now proposing. He gave me such generous support in my Amendment on Second Reading and in the Commitee stage that I rather feel that I am deserting him. But I am surprised at the line he has followed after the discussion which we had. All of us, I think, were in the difficulty to "Which the Attorney-General pointed, that is, that we were seeking by the Amendment to perpetuate indefinitely the employment of non-professional qualified clerks. I think that he was entitled to make that charge. But we were faced with the bigger difficulty that we wanted to secure justice for the assistants who, under Clause 20, were not going to receive it. We were faced with the still greater difficulty that under Clause 20 there would not be an adequate supply of justices' clerks to meet the need, so in spite of the charge which the Attorney-General made against us, which was quite justified, we had to take this stand and put down our Amendment.
  When I read the hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause, I was at first attracted towards it. I had discussed this question over the week-end with many of my friends who were interested, but the more we looked at it the less attractive it seemed. Tt seemed to me that it would
  2536
  mean that there would be inferior qualifications for this particular type of solicitor, if such they would be called. I do not think any of us want to see inferior qualifications in any profession. In any profession there should be a basic qualification with as many additional qualifications as one may like to secure, but there should not be two qualifications, one inferior to the other.
  4.30 p.m.
  I have considered whether London University might be able to supply an external degree in law for this type of post, and I know some assistant clerks who hold such a qualification, but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it would be just as easy to take the professional qualifications as to take the external degree. I am driven, therefore, to support the proposals that are now put forward by my right hon. Friend. He has found, I believe, an admirable solution for a very difficult problem. In the first place, his solution will satisfy the Law Society. I did not express any great love for the Law Society when I spoke in the Second Reading Debate, but they are entitled to be considered fully in regard to the professional qualifications of their members. If my right hon. Friend has satisfied them that the proper qualifications will be available for these clerks, then he has done a great service.
  In the second place, he has satisfied the assistants. The assistants now serving are completely covered. Every assistant now serving has the same protection that he had before Clause 20 appeared, which is all to the good. Indeed, assistants will be better off, because all these assistants will now have an opportunity to take the full professional qualification, which will make their chances for appointment to justices' clerk greater than now, when they have only a statutory qualification. A man will now have the statutory qualifications plus the additional professional qualifications desired by the Law Society.
  In the third place, my right hon. Friend will satisfy the lawyers who appear before the bench. The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) that lawyers do not like appearing before a bench that is advised by a non-profes-sionally qualified magistrates' clerk. I attempted to rebut that, but if it is the

  2537
  case that lawyers feel in some difficulty, the position will be greatly eased by the fact that the bench is to be guided by a fully professionally qualified man. It is also a good thing for the magistrates that my right hon. Friend should have found this solution. They will know, when they make their appointment, that they are making it from an adequate list of able, and efficient justices' clerks. The justices ' clerks will appear before them with their full professional qualifications, and in addition to these qualifications they will have acquired the experience which can only be acquired by service in the courts.
  It only remains to be certain that the Law Society will generously implement the promises they have given to my right hon. Friend. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity in this regard, and I am certain that they will do everything possible to remove every financial embarrassment to an assistant who wishes to become professionally qualified. If ' they do that, then, instead of having Clause 20 as originally drafted, we shall have a Clause that will satisfy everyone concerned about this problem. I offer my sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend for having found such an admirable solution of this very difficult problem.
  Mr. Hale: My right hon. Friend has dealt with this matter so fully, so effectively and so clearly that I should not have thought it necessary to have added anything but for certain misconceptions which still appear to exist in the minds of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and some of my hon. Friends as to the position of solicitors. When I was articled some 32 years ago, we had to pay a stamp duty of £80 on the articles, and my father had to pay a premium of 300 guineas. I served for five years without a penny by way of remuneration, which was the normal procedure, and paid a £30 stamp duty on the admission certificate. My boss then offered me £3 a week, which I refused, and I got a job at £4 a week, which I left, and spent £2 12s. 6d. on a brass plate and started on my own. That was the net return for five years.
  Mr. Cecil Poole: What has it been since?
  Mr. Hale: I could supply the earlier figures, if my hon. Friend likes.
  Mr. Poole: We want them up to date.
  Mr. Hale: I so rarely see my practice that I should have to ring up to find out whether we are making a profit or not.
  That was the normal procedure, and in fairness to the Law Society it is right to point out what is the position now, and also in fairness to the Government. The £80 stamp duty was abolished by this Government, and so was the £30 stamp duty. It is not now the normal practice for a premium to be paid, although in some districts it still goes on, and I have protested about it in Lancashire. I have had many articled clerks without any premiums of any kind being paid. It is open to a lad to go to a solicitors' office as an office boy, and then, if after a few years' service he shows himself to be efficient and bright, it is in the solicitor's interests, as well as in the interests of the lad, to article him and pay him wages, as well as giving him time off to take his examinations.
  The hon. and learned Member for Brighton, who knows how easy it is to pass the Bar examinations, seemed to think that the examination will be recondite and will demand special ability, but if he looks at some of the solicitors he will know that is nonsense. One does not need any brains to qualify as a solicitor, but one has to go through hard toil and graft, and it is right that one should. It is reasonable that a person should qualify with a fairly wide knowledge of the law, which I am bound to say has not become any less complex during the last four and a half years. If we are to continue with the lay justices at all—and this Bill is very much in favour of that, and so am I, because taking it by and large they are one of the best tribunals in the country—then the really essential thing is that a qualified clerk should rule on law.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not "rule," advise.
  Mr. Hale: That has been the policy.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member says that a qualified clerk should rule on law.
  Mr. Hale: That is precisely what I meant to say. My view has always been that, on matters of law, the learned clerk should rule. The hon. and learned Member is quite right that this is not

  2539
  the position at the moment; that they advise and the bench can reject the advice. I am more attracted to the position of a judge advocate at a court martial—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: However much attracted the hon. Member may be to the position of a judge advocate in a court martial, the magistrates' clerk has no power to rule.
  Mr. Hale: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to finish, he will understand what I am saying. I am much more attracted to the position of the judge advocate who has to rule on the law in a public court, and having done that, takes no further part in the proceedings. Similarly, the clerk should give his ruling, although this is not relevant to the proposal now before us.
  The whole trend has been to appoint full-time clerks, although one knows of many cases where solicitors are very excellent part-time clerks and loyal servants. The position of the practising solicitor who is also a clerk to the magistrates gives rise to an anomaly that was mentioned earlier today in a slightly different type of case. There is an inevitable conflict of interest where the clerk to the magistrates finds himself advising the bench when it is trying one of his own clients. The position is very difficult, because justice must not only be done but appear to be done. Therefore, the trend of events is towards a full-time clerk and the combination of adjoining magisterial districts.
  I accept the view that the position of the qualified clerk to the unqualified clerk is an impossible one. The unqualified clerk serving a qualified clerk is also in a difficult position, and this Clause will go far to deal with that. I am sure that once it has been put to the Law Society they will accept that point of view. I do not always agree with the Law Society, but I had a letter from them on this matter, which I read with pleasure before writing back to say, "For once I agree entirely with you. This is progress," although we have not agreed on whose part the progress has been made.
  Everyone accepts that the new Clause which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) was put before the House with com-
  2540
  plete sincerity to meet a point of view that most of us had in mind. It was put forward with the intention of helping the so-called unqualified clerks, many of whom are better qualified, from the point of view of long experience, than some of the qualified clerks. One of the best clerks I ever appeared before had no qualification at all until a few days ago, but he was, nevertheless, an exceedingly able lawyer. The trend of this discussion shows that a real difficulty will be met by the Home Secretary's proposed Clause and that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton would create a highly anomalous and unnecessary position for the half qualified men in a limited job, who would be worse off at the end of the process, than they are without it.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has made an attempt to solve a problem to which attention was drawn on the Committee stage. I disagreed with him then, and supported the Home Secretary in his stand for a qualification for justices' clerks. That being so, I am a little sorry that my hon. and learned Friend should have been subjected to some criticism by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) for pursuing that course. I think most of us will agree that the Home Secretary has found the better solution of the two, and I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment when it comes before us. I really rose, however, to express the hope that, having considered both these matters, we could now call a halt to this discussion. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will feel satisfied that his new Clause has achieved his object and that we shall be able to get on with the other parts of the Bill, on which I hope discussion need not perhaps be so lengthy.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments, as we have had a full discussion, but I cannot accept the invitation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to withdraw the Clause, although, from the tone of the Debate, I have no doubt that it will be negatived. I cannot leave—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I thought the hon. and learned Member was about to withdraw his Motion; he cannot make a second speech.
  Mr. Marlowe: As I moved the Motion I thought I was entitled to reply. If not, may I, with the leave of the House, say that I appreciate that the Home Secretary has made an effort to go some way with me on this matter? The position is better than if it had never been raised at all, and I think we can feel that we have achieved something.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 7.—(RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PRACTISE AS SOLICITOR.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is not my Amendment, in page 5, line 23, after "partners," to insert "all employees," being selected, Sir? It is an Amendment which the Government said they would consider. The point raised by this Amendment is not, I think, raised by the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. If my Amendment is not selected, it prevents me from inquiring into the reasons why this particular point has not been met, although the Government said they would consider it.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Further to that point of Order. I had hoped that we had met the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going to deal with it on the Government Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker decided not to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) because he was satisfied that it was covered by the next Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Then in case I can convince the Government that the words of my Amendment ought to go into the Bill, could we not take my Amendment and the Government Amendment together?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think I have power to allow that.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the improvement in the Government Amendment in page 5, line 27, but I should like to explain why, in my view, that Amendment does not meet the point I raised on Clause 7 during the Committee stage. The right hon. and learned
  2542
  Gentleman will see that the people who are prohibited by subsection (2) from behaving in a particular way are in only two categories, namely, the solicitor, who is one of the justices, or any partner of his. These are the only two people who are prohibited from practising. The rest of the Clause in its original form, and as it will no doubt be amended, merely goes on to say what they shall not do. The Clause as drawn, and as it will be amended, does not apply to anyone else but the solicitor, who is one of the justices of the peace, and his partner. I suggest that it ought to apply one degree further, to the qualified person in the employment of a solicitor who has no partner.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman quite appreciated that a solicitor can only practise either by himself or through his partner or an employee?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes.
  Mr. Silverman: If his employee were practising, he would be practising himself, so that the words "or employees "are unnecessary.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been considering this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry has not moved his Amendment, which Mr. Speaker did not select, and I must call the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from "to." to the end of line 28, and to insert:
  "act in connection with proceedings before any of those justices as solicitor or agent for the solicitor of any person concerned in those proceedings."
  We have given careful consideration to this matter, and I entirely agree with the view which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has expressed. I said so in Committee, and I say so again today. We think that this Amendment covers the position of the solicitor who has a managing clerk or other employee who appears before the court. The employee can only appear in that capacity, and the justice-solicitor is properly described as practising before the court when his employee, the managing clerk or whoever it may be, appears for him.

  2543
  I should like to assure the hon. and learned Member for Daventry that we considered other forms of this Amendment which put in the words "or employees," but after taking advice we came to the conclusion that the form of words in our Amendment was the most appropriate to cover the point in his Amendment. Our Amendment also precludes a solicitor appearing by his agent, so I think it is inconsistent with the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has put down in page 5, line 28.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I shall not move that Amendment.
  The Attorney-General: We take the view that it might be open to serious objection if a justices' clerk who was a solicitor, although unable to appear himself, were able to employ an agent to appear in his cases for him.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate that there is nothing between us as to our intentions under this Clause. Indeed, as I said in Committee, the Amendment I tabled was of a drafting nature. I must confess that when I first looked at the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved—I had only a short time at my disposal then—I was under the impression that it did not fully cover the point I wanted to see covered. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the trouble he has taken and the assurance he has given. I agree with him that there are certain difficulties about the next Amendment in my name, that in page 5, line 28. I do not know whether it will be selected or not, but if it is, I do not propose to move it. All I can do in those circumstances is to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 37, leave out from "not," to end of line 38, and insert:
  "subject him or any partner of his to any disqualification under this section."
  In line 41, leave out from "not," to end of line 42, and insert:
  "subject any partner of his to any disqualification under this section."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Clause 8. —(TRAVELLING AND LODGING ALLOWANCES.)
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  "which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament."
  During the discussions in Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) pressed for the insertion of a requirement that the regulations to be made under this Clause in regard to travelling and lodging allowances to justices should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure in this House. We have considered that matter and agree that it should be done. This Amendment makes provision for it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10. —(AREA OF COMMISSION.)
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "June," and to insert "December."
  This Amendment must not be taken to commit the Government to any final policy in any other matters as to the respective merits of June and December. It is a procedural Amendment in regard to the particular matters dealt with in Clause 10. The Amendment is made because if the population were taken to the nearest 1,000 as at June, 1948, Wednesbury, which had a population on that date of 34,460, would be excluded. Nelson, the next borough in population above Wednesbury, had at the end of June, 1948, a population of 34,500. There was, therefore, a difference of only 70 between them in population, but that 70 was critical on the point whether or not they would be within the scope of the Clause.
  It would be obviously wrong to differentiate between these boroughs, and if the population at the end of December, 1948, is taken they are both included, Nelson having at that time a population of 34,540, having gone up by 10 apparently, and Wednesbury a population of 34,660. Accordingly, the Amendment provides that the December date shall be taken so as to include those two boroughs. There are no other boroughs, as far as we have been able to ascertain the position—and we have examined all of them—affected by this Amendment so

  2545
  far as the position of any quarter sessions within the limit of 20,000 are concerned.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to delay the House in considering this matter, but may I be permitted to intervene for one moment to congratulate the Government on the realisation of the value of the extra 10 people who came to live in Nelson between June and December. 1948, whoever they may turn out to be.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, at end, to insert:
  "(c) that at the end of that month the borough had a separate commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions, and the Lord Chancellor makes an order under subsection (5) of this section saving the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions."
  This is the first of three Amendments to page 7 which gives the Lord Chancellor discretion to save a court of quarter sessions and the commission of the peace with which it is associated in certain exceptional circumstances where, both in the interests of justice and because of historical or geographical reasons, he deems it desirable so to do. The Amendments have been introduced to give effect to an undertaking which I gave during the discussion on an Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put down. That Amendment was withdrawn. It was one which contemplated saving recorderships with their associated commissions of the peace in exceptional cases, and it also contemplated in some cases saving commissions of the peace although they were not associated with any recordership.
  Reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Debates in Committee, I am sorry to find that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), in the course of my speech, in which I was accepting the principle of the Amendment which had been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, interrupted to say:
  "May I put a point to my right hon. and learned Friend before he sits down? While I thank him for the manner in which he has dealt with the matter, I should like to point out that he mentioned only recorderships. In accepting the principle of the Amendment, does he also accept that part of the Amendment which refers to separate commissions of the peace? "
  2546
  I said, "Yes, Sir," and if I had said that alone it might well have been thought, and indeed would obviously have been thought, that I had in my mind that other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment which dealt with commissions of the peace standing on their own in boroughs which were not quarter sessions boroughs. That was indeed the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton had addressed his question. I am afraid that he and I were at cross purposes as appears quite clear from the qualifications that I gave to that answer. I said:
  "Yes, Sir. We have taken the view that it would be impossible, without a considerable and complicated alteration in the law, which certainly could not be accomplished in the scope of this Bill, to separate a recordership from the commission of the peace with which it is associated."—{OFFICIAL REPORT 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1940.]
  I am afraid at that time I had very much in mind the position of those boroughs which had their own courts of quarter sessions. I should very much regret if I led my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton—I do not think I misled the hon. and learned Member for Daventry or any other hon. Member—to think that I was accepting the Amendment in its fuller scope as including separate commissions of the peace in boroughs which had not got their courts of quarter sessions. I am afraid I had no intention of doing that, and on the Debate on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment we concentrated our attention on those boroughs which had their courts of quarter sessions. Indeed, almost every speech was directed to the position of quarter sessions and the question whether or not the work of those courts might be made to provide a greater contribution to the administration of justice than they had done sometimes in the past. It is fair to say that the whole emphasis of our discussion was laid on the position of quarter sessions, and we did not deal in any detail with the situation which might arise of boroughs which had not a court of quarter sessions but where there might be special reasons in regard to the commission of the peace.
  5.0 p.m.
  I am very sorry if my answer on that point misled my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, as indeed I am afraid it must have done. I can only say, on the

  2547
  merits of the matter, that the Committee having only just fixed the figure of 35,000 as the appropriate one, the optimum figure, below which boroughs ought not to have a separate commission of the peace, we would not have felt then, nor could we feel now, that it would be reasonable to give discretion to the Lord Chancellor to make an exception in those cases. I think that the House would agree that, in discussing that question of separate commissions of the peace, we went a very long way to meet the views of the Committee. Indeed, we accepted exactly the figure which had been put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). After a very full Debate on that matter, I think that the general consensus of opinion was that the figure 35,000 was right and that it would not be appropriate to go below it.
  I have made an. explanation which goes a little wide of the present Amendment in order to make it clear that, through my own fault, I am afraid, we were at cross purposes when that question was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, and that it was not our intention, in accepting the principle of the Amendment put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, to include the case of the borough which had no quarter sessions. This Amendment, the first of the three connected with this matter, does not relate to the separate commission of the peace unless there is a court of quarter sessions with which it is associated. We shall have an opportunity on the main Amendment to consider the position of the quarter sessions and the circumstances in which it may be saved by the Lord Chancellor. It may be more appropriate to do it on that Amendment, but I thought it right to make this explanation immediately and at this stage.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been frank with the House in pointing out and making quite clear that his proposals do not now fully comply with the Amendment which I tabled and moved on the Committee stage. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that my Amendment was difficult to interpret. As it was drafted, it seemed clear. I think that he must admit that
  2548
  the Amendment giving power to depart from the ceilings imposed by Clause 10 applied to the whole of Clause 10 and not just to the cases where there were recorderships. It applied to cases where there were separate commissions of the peace.
  I must express regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not, perhaps, pay enough attention to what I was saying in moving the Amendment. I clearly drew attention to the matter at the very outset of my speech. I said:
  "I am not satisfied, even though some boroughs have now been given a new lease of life so far as commissions of the peace are concerned,"
  that the administration of justice would not be interfered with as the result of the fixing of an arbitrary figure. Further, I said that the Amendment was
  "designed to try to state principles which should be applied in determining whether a recordership or, indeed, a separate commission, should be retained when the population is below the ceiling specified in Clause 10."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in replying to me and before the question was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), said:
  "… if the hon. and learned Gentleman will now withdraw his Amendment. We undertake to accept his Amendment in principle and to put down an appropriate Amendment on the Report stage."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1928, 1929, and 1940.]
  Hearing those words, I must say that I thought at the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was accepting my Amendment in principle completely.
  The Attorney-General: Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that I had gone very much further than he expected me to go?
  Mr. Manningam-Buller: I thought that my persuasiveness had reached undue heights on that occasion. I hoped that the weight of my argument would make some impression upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I was delighted to find that it had made a considerable impression I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone the whole way when the question was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and the answer was "Yes." From what he went on to say, I think

  2549
  it is clear that the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite wrongly fixed at that moment only upon the case of the recorderships. That being so, while I must express my regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to go with me quite as far as I hoped, I do not intend to try to pin him down to what was said upon the Committee stage. I would prefer to reserve such comments as I have upon the proposals he has tabled to embody the principles I put forward with regard to recorderships till we come to the particular Amendment.
  I am sorry that the Government have not been able to go the full way in giving this discretion where there are separate commissions of the peace, although I appreciate, as I think the whole Committee appreciate, that the Government have gone a considerable way in reducing the ceiling applicable to such commissions. It is a pity that the Lord Chancellor should not have reserved to him power to retain a separate commission of the peace when the population of the borough is below the prescribed ceiling and it could be shown to the Lord Chancellor that there was strong argument on geographical or historical grounds, or on grounds of better administration, for the retention of the separate commission of the peace.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I quite realise, reading through the report of the Debate, that while one's mind was fully occupied at the time with saving those boroughs which had a separate commission of the peace and which conformed to the new ceiling, it was only natural that when the Attorney-General replied "Yes, Sir," it should have made us feel that we had got the whole of what we were asking for, and that the Attorney-General had accepted the full Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I must agree that, reading the whole of what the Attorney-General said it is clear that we rejoiced a little too early and that we were, so to speak, travelling in the street car named "Desire" at that moment.
  I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) was not alone in jumping to that conclusion. If the House will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT they will see that after
  2550
  my right hon. and learned Friend finished his speech, some other people realised that they had rejoiced too early, because the report says:
  "Several hon. Members rose —."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol 470, c. 1940.]
  I can only conclude that the hon. Members who rose at that time might have wanted to say a little more about the subject and about the misunderstanding, and might have tried to plead with the Attorney-General. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry does not quite agree with that. I think he might take my part for once and not get me wrong about it. After all, nobody knows why those hon. Members rose. I can only assume that they rose for that purpose. In response to an appeal by the Deputy-Chairman, those hon. Members sat down, so that we might get on with the next business.
  I suppose it is no use at all to plead with the Attorney-General on this point. I hope that another occasion may arise when we shall be able to ask him for more discretion in this matter. There are some boroughs which, certainly on historical grounds and perhaps also on geographical grounds, ought to be brought within the minimum.
  The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged for the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) have dealt with the matter. When my attention was drawn to the obvious misunderstanding that had arisen, we gave the most careful consideration again to the question whether we could deal exceptionally with commissions of the peace with which there were no associated recorderships, and we came to the conclusion that we could not do so. I should be very sorry to think that my answer had misled hon. Members with the result that they did not put down Amendments on the Report stage. It may be some consolation to them to know that if they had put down Amendments on Report stage, we should have had to reject them. For the rest, I must confess that that was not one of my more lucid moments. I can only appear in sackcloth and ashes and throw myself on the mercy of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 35, leave out from "the," to "His," and insert "passing of this Act."—[The A ttorney-General.]
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, to leave out "seventy-five," and to insert "sixty-five."
  This is really consequential on the matters we discussed when the Bill was re-committed this afternoon.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of The ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
  In page 8, line 18, at end, insert:
  "(5) The Lord Chancellor may make an order saving for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the grant to a borough of its commission and quarter sessions if—

  (a) the borough council applies for the order not later than two months after the date of the passing of this Act or within such further time as the Lord Chancellor may allow; and

  (b) the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that it is desirable to save the grant to the borough of its commission and quarter sessions on account—

  (i) of the assistance the borough court of quarter sessions has given or is likely to be able to give in the administration of justice in the county which includes the borough; and

  (ii) of historical or geographical reasons; and it shall be the duty of the recorder for the time being of any borough named in an order under this section, before he fixes the date for holding any quarter sessions for the borough, to consult the chairman of the court of quarter sessions of the county or quarter sessions division of a county in which the borough is situated or (failing the chairman) the deputy chairman or one of the deputy chairmen of that court.

  (6) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
  The Attorney-General: This is the second and the main of the three Amendments dealing with the power which will now be given to the Lord Chancellor to exercise an exceptional discretion to save the commission of the peace and the court of quarter sessions in boroughs having a population of under 20,000. We have discussed this matter very fully on the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put down in Committee and I think that I need say very little about it. I should perhaps say that we would not want it to be thought
  2552
  that this power was going to be exercised very widely. It is on the face of it a power to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, and the Lord Chancellor will have to look with great care at any applications which may be made to him for the exercise of the power.
  When we discussed the matter in Committee I pointed out that owing to the dates at which quarter sessions had frequently been fixed, and perhaps also to other considerations, the procedure of cross-committals under the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, had not very frequently been employed and that there were few, if any, courts in this category—I mean the category of boroughs with a population of under 20,000—which were at present making any significant contribution to the administration of justice, but I said that it seemed to me that there might be a few cases—not many—in which an alteration of the dates of the sessions might result in the courts attracting a certain amount of work from the county and consequently making a useful contribution to the administration of justice in the county.
  Under this Amendment the Lord Chancellor will be prepared to consider whether in a particular case by altering the dates of the sittings and by other arrangements the courts could usefully assist in the administration of justice in the county as a whole. If the Lord Chancellor comes to the conclusion that arrangements could and are likely to be made which would enable the courts so to do and that there are historical and geographical reasons—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Historical or geographical.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I am much obliged—historical or geographical reasons in addition which make it desirable to save the grant of quarter sessions and a separate commission to the borough, he will do so. If he does so it will become the duty of the recorder—this is a point of some importance, although there is no immediate sanction attached to it—to consult with the chairman of the county quarter sessions in order to see at what dates it would be most convenient to fix the borough quarter sessions so as to secure cross-committals and assist the county quarter sessions in its work.

  2553
  I think that is all I need say at this moment about the Amendment, except to add that applications for the exercise of this discretion by the Lord Chancellor have to be made within a period of two months from the passing of the Bill. I thought at first sight that that seemed a rather short period in view of the Christmas vacation and so on, but on studying the matter it seems necessary that the period should be a short, limited one if the rest of the Bill is to be brought into operation. A great deal depends on the end of the financial year in the case of these boroughs, and that to some extent governs the stages at which the Bill can be brought into operation. We want to get this matter out of the way before the end of the financial year, which is 31st March, and it follows that if the applications are to be properly considered they ought to be in before the end of two months after after the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman moves the Amendment I would point out that he said a few minutes ago that that was all he wanted to say at the moment. He, like any other hon. Member, cannot speak again without permission.
  The Attorney-General: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded his lucid exposition of the Amendment by a reference to the time within which an application can be made under it. I agree with him that at first sight the period of two months seems a very short one. Unless action is taken by the borough council within two months of the passing of the Act the new provision will be of no effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the end of the financial year, the effect of Christmas, and things of that sort, but I fancy that he has not given sufficient consideration to the position of recorders who are candidates for Parliament. In the event of the election taking place within the next two months, they may find it very difficult indeed to take advantage of these provisions. I assume that should such an event occur the Lord Chancellor would be willing to grant
  2554
  some further time for the making of the application. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to say that there is no possibility of that occurring and that the question does not really arise.
  As to the rest of the Amendment, I was sorry to hear him say that it gave a power which would only be used in exceptional cases. I think it is a power which should be used when the case can be brought within the categories specified in the Clause. I believe that a great deal more use can be made of these courts of quarter sessions in boroughs with small populations, more use with an improved administration of justice and at less cost, and I hope that great regard will be had to that in considering such applications made under this Clause.
  I am sure that by a re-arrangement of dates, which can be done very often by agreement—therefore I welcome the provisions in the Bill dealing with that—the burden can be more fairly shared between county quarter sessions and borough county sessions in many areas. Merely by taking the population limit without regard to the nature of the communications that exist in the area and the presence of big camps which are not included in the population of the borough, one may do something in letting the recordership go which will not help but will impede the administration of justice.
  I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting so fully and so adequately the question of dealing with recorderships which I raised in Committee stage. I hope that as the result of this power we may retain some of these recorderships which can play a useful part even if they have not done so in the last few years, and also those recorderships of boroughs with small populations which have been playing a useful part. Berkshire in particular has had a system with small recorderships which has proved extremely useful and beneficial.
  Mr. C. Poole: I only intervene in this Debate because of a little wordy duel I had with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) which may have conveyed a false impression as a result of something you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When the hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that

  2555
  certain boroughs not falling within the numerical ceilings should be retained, he mentioned one or two, finishing with Leamington. I interjected "Lichfield" and we got into a discussion regarding the merits of Lichfield. You said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this had nothing to do with the matter. That was true, but Lichfield has everything to do with this subsection and I am glad that the Government has departed from a purely numerical test for recorderships and commissions of peace.
  I have listened to many of the cases put forward by hon. Gentlemen speaking for the areas they represent. Those I have not heard, I have read, and I shall not make the case for Lichfield today although that case is probably outstandingly superior to any other case put in this House. I say that because Lichfield has had a recorder and a separate court of quarter sessions for over 400 years. As a matter of fact, Lichfield has been in existence since the year 300 and its first charter was granted as far back as 1387. We have been interested in the administration of justice in Lichfield for probably longer than any other centre in this country.
  I was sorry that the learned Attorney should have suggested that there would only be a few, if any, of these recorder-ships and separate commissions of the peace retained because Lichfield adequately fulfils every test laid down in this Government Amendment. It is 16 miles away from the county sessions, and although on the numerical test, which was originally the only test in the Bill, it falls lamentably short in the ratio of population, it being only around the 10,000 mark, by its geographical location in a mining area covering a population of something like 40,000, it can fulfil a need in assisting the county sessions.
  If I were to advance the historical claims of Lichfield, the House would be sitting here for the greater part of the night, but I am sure that the Attorney-General will be fully competent and, I hope, ready and willing to look at the historical associations of Lichfield in the administration of justice for the last 1,600 years. I hope he will say that, because of its geographical location, it is one of those recorderships which ought to be retained and that, on the basis
  2556
  of population and assistance to the county sessions, it also fills the bill.
  The Attorney-General: On that point, perhaps the hon. Member would like to add to his claims for Lichfield that it tried 17 cases this year and 10 the year before, which was well above the average.
  Mr. Poole: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for helping me with my brief. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will take due note of the partisan approach to the claims of Lichfield for the retention of its recordership. [An HON. MEMBER: "Don't spoil a good case."] I will now sit down, advancing only one point which I admit had escaped me but which the hon. and learned Gentleman made, that further strengthens our claim. He mentioned the proximity of camps with their large populations as having had an impact upon the crime factor. Lichfield has Whittington Barracks., the headquarters of the South Staffordshire Regiment. Occasionally, through alien regiments being located in the barracks, our crime factor is influenced in an upward direction. I feel sure that in view of all those circumstances Lichfield must be one of the few, if any, to be retained.
  Brigadier Thorp: I rise to thank the Home Secretary for putting down this Amendment, which meets the case of Berwick-on-Tweed. I was glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) was here today to put his case because it backed up my case and I mentioned Lichfield as one of the four boroughs that had been made counties in 1836.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I rise to support an observation of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in regard to the exercise by the Lord Chancellor of the discretion conferred upon him by this new subsection. I should be sorry if this were to be carried out merely on the test that the case for retaining any of the recorderships in question has to be an exceptional one. I should have thought that the point of this subsection was that in nearly all of these recorder-ships there is a considerable amount of work from other areas which can be shared by them if arrangements for that purpose are made, and that therefore on

  2557
  practical grounds they should be retained.
  I agree that historical grounds are important and ought to be considered and respected, but that ought not to be the salient test. The paramount test should be the practical question whether that quarter sessions can help in expediting and cheapening justice and making it possible for the administration of justice to be worked more effectively and smoothly. Therefore I ask the Attorney-General, in considering this matter, not to be so influenced, as he appeared to be when introducing the Amendment, by his view about exceptional cases since the ' only test ought to be whether quarter sessions can be retained in aid of the better and cheaper administration of justice.
  Mr. Hollis: I shall not make another speech on this topic, but may I intervene on a layman's query? With great respect to the learned Attorney, I am not so much concerned about how any exceptional cases will be considered by him because it will be the Lord Chancellor who will consider these cases. With regard to the period of two months, the Amendment says:
  "not later than two months after the date of the passing of this Act or within such further time as the Lord Chancellor may allow."
  Does that mean that each application for extending the time limit will be considered or that some general ruling of extension might or might not be given? From the speech of the learned Attorney it appeared that it was not within the contemplation of the Government, at the moment at any rate—though sometimes they do things they have not contemplated—to extend the period of two months in general. Therefore, if the further condition "or within such further time" has any meaning, it presumably means that in a particular case for some reason—such as my hon. and learned Friend instanced, that the recorder was standing for Parliament—an extension of time may be granted. That is my understanding and I shall be grateful to know if my understanding is right.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: I want to take up another aspect of the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has referred. The drafting of the
  2558
  Amendment is not entirely satisfactory. As I understand the position, the two months' time limit is a period in which the application has to be made, but thereafter there is no time limit of any kind as to how the matter is handled. Once the application is in within' two months, the situation is saved, so to speak, for the time being, and thereafter the Lord Chancellor decides whether he grants the application or not. I do not regard that as the most satisfactory method. I would much prefer the approach which was made in our Amendment, namely, that all the recorderships should be saved and the Lord Chancellor should consider each one on its merits and come to a decision which of them should be allowed to continue. The method proposed in the Amendment now before the House seems to put matters in reverse.
  I cannot see the argument of the Attorney-General in referring to the end of the financial year, for there is nothing which requires this matter to be completed by the end of the financial year or by any other date. It might drag on interminably, as far as one can see, because no action is required by the Lord Chancellor. That is why I want to know what is to happen in practice to a court which is due to sit after the Bill has received the Royal Assent and before the time limit of two months has expired.
  On the face of it, under the Bill the recordership or the court of quarter sessions would appear to have been abolished; yet, pending the decision of the Lord Chancellor, it would presumably be entitled to sit. Under what warrant would it then be acting? The drafting on these points is not very satisfactory and appears to have been done hurriedly. I well understand there has not been a great deal of time for full consideration on all these points. One is led to the conclusion, therefore, that our Amendment, which was more deeply considered, is far more satisfactory because it deals with the matter from the opposite direction.
  Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there is any time limit for consideration by the Lord Chancellor? It does not seem to me that there is; apparently he makes a final decision at any time as to whether a recordership is to be abolished. It would be far better

  2559
  to impose a time limit somewhere, otherwise an application from a borough might remain in the Lord Chancellor's office for five years before he ever dealt with it. During the whole of that time, nobody would know whether the court of quarter sessions was to continue or be put an end to.
  The way I should like to see the problem dealt with would be to give every existing recordership an opportunity to justify itself. I fully appreciate that there are many which it is difficult to justify on the ground of being necessary for the administration of justice. As the Attorney-General pointed out at an earlier stage, however, in many instances the existing situation arose because of bad timing by the recorder as to when he took his court. Some of them, quite properly, have been open to hostile criticism in that respect.
  There have been recorders who have deliberately reduced their work to a minimum by adjusting the sitting to a date immediately following that of an adjacent court where all the cases had been dealt with, and there was nothing left for the recorder to do except to pick up his pair of white gloves. That matter could easily be remedied by some such regulation or enactment as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put into the Clause. I would have preferred the matter to be left as it is for the time being, without the two months' limitation, for an opportunity to be given to each borough to see whether by an adjustment of its dates it could justify its existence. This would give an opportunity for full consideration and would allow each case to be considered on its merits.
  It may well be that the Lord Chancellor in considering one of these applications will have before him figures for recent years and will say, "Only four or five cases have been tried at each sitting of this court over the last few years and, therefore, I abolish it," although by arranging different dates for the sittings of the court entirely different figures might be produced. I would prefer, therefore, that the opposite way of handling the matter should be adopted in order to give an opportunity for rearrangement of dates, and that recorder-ships should not be considered by the Lord Chancellor until they had taken this
  2560
  action; and it is against that background that the decision could be arrived at as to whether or not they should be abolished.
  The Attorney-General: I do not know whether the House will allow me to reply to the points which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I cannot help thinking that the right hon. and learned Member has failed to appreciate that the course he proposed—namely, that boroughs should have unlimited time within which to put forward applications for the retention of their recorderships and commissions of the peace—would make it quite impossible to implement the main provisions of the Bill within any set time-table. Until it has been settled whether or not a commission of the peace in a borough of under 20,000 inhabitants is to be retained, no arrangements can be made in regard to the magistrates' clerks' committee and the other arrangements for the appointment of a joint clerk and so forth which are contemplated and are part of the main structure of the Bill. If the Bill is to be brought into operation, it is quite obvious that there must be some time limit.
  Mr. Marlowe: I did not suggest that there should be no time limit, but that the Lord Chancellor should approach the matter from the opposite direction and should consider each case on its merits. I would do away with the question of application altogether so that the Lord Chancellor can take action whenever he likes.
  The Attorney-General: That is a quite unfair burden to put upon the Lord Chancellor and might result in his imposing on boroughs, courts which they no longer desired to maintain. The whole case which was put forward, and which we accepted on the Committee stage, was that there were some boroughs which urgently desired to retain their commissions of the peace and their recorders courts. If they cannot make up their minds within a limited period, I am afraid that those separate commissions and recorders courts will have to go. The Clause definitely throws the onus on the local authority, in consultation, I have no doubt, with the recorder, to say whether or not they consider that they come within

  2561
  the special provisions of this discretionary power. It is only in that case that the Lord Chancellor will be able to consider this matter.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put to the Attorney-General a question with which, I think, he ought to deal? Suppose that the application is made towards the end of the two months—say, at about the end of next February—some time must elapse for the application to be considered, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor would want further information. I do not imagine that the application would be turned down because that information was not sent with it. What is to happen about the holding of quarter sessions in that borough in the first quarter of next year?
  The Attorney-General: I had intended to deal with that. It is an important point which was touched upon by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton. The Lord Chancellor will obviously have to place himself in a position to deal with all the applications which may be made under this Amendment, and to have dealt with them before the Clauses of the Bill which would otherwise involve the abolition of the separate commissions of the peace and the recorderships come into operation.
  The hon. and learned Member will recall that under Clause 45 there is provision for bringing different parts of the Bill into operation at different times, and we shall meet the situation by the use of that Clause. The position will therefore be that for the first two months after the passage of this Bill at all events, these courts will continue to exist because those Clauses which will eventually abolish them will not be brought into operation. On the other hand, the Amendment which we are seeking to put into Clause 10 will be brought into operation immediately. There will therefore be two months' interval during which the courts will continue and the commissions of the peace will subsist, but the local borough council will have to make up its mind. After that, the matter may well be delayed for a little time for the Lord Chancellor to decide how to act on the application He may want to have further information, etc. That situation will be protected by the power under the Bill not to bring into operation the Clauses abolishing the
  2562
  courts until he has disposed of all the applications made to him.
  It will be quite clear that some period has to be set to the time in which the borough councils will make their application. The reason why two months has to be fixed—I avoided explaining it when I was previously addressing the House because it is rather complicated—is that if the financial provisions of Clause 27 are to be brought into force, as is hoped, on 1st April, 1951, the magistrates' courts committees must be set up at least six months before then in order that they may deal in the intervening period with the questions relating to salaries of the clerks, etc. on which their determinations will take effect on 1st April, 1951. Before the magistrates' courts committees can be set up under the Measure, the provisions of Clause 10 abolishing separate commissions of the peace and separate recorder-ships must have been brought into operation. The result is that unless we set back the whole administrative programme contemplated under this Bill these questions of what commissions of the peace are to survive have to be dealt with, and they have to be included or not included as the case may be in the area of the magistrates' courts committees, before the end of this financial year, which really leaves only two months.
  I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Devizes. The power taken enables the Lord Chancellor to make an extension of two months either generally or in particular cases and the reason why that power was included was two-fold. There might be some special reason in a particular case, or for one reason or another the administrative programme might be delayed and therefore there would be no need to insist even generally on the two months' period. I considered this matter very carefully because two months seemed a short time as a timetable to be laid down in the Clause, but subject to the power I have mentioned it appeared essential.
  Mr. York: Does the Attorney-General consider that the Amendment precludes the Lord Chancellor from considering the case of liberties?
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that liberties are covered by the Amendment. Now that I am on my feet I should add, to remove misconceptions, that when

  2563
  I said that the Lord Chancellor would only be able to deal with these cases exceptionally I did not mean that if particular boroughs satisfied the criteria laid down in the Clause they would even then only be treated exceptionally. It seemed to me, as I said in Committee, that only exceptionally would boroughs be able to bring themselves within the criteria.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, leave out "June," and insert "December."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Clause 11. —(JUSTICES AND COURTS IN LONDON.)
  Amendment made: In page 9, line 25, leave out "1925," and insert "1949."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Clause 12. —(LICENSING AUTHORITIES FOR NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS.)
  5.45 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section the confirming authority in any borough mentioned in Part III of the Third Schedule to this Act or in an order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten thereof shall be a joint committee of the borough justices and justices for the county in which the borough is situated (constituted in accordance with section four of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910), if and so long as it appears to the borough justices expedient having regard to the small number of the borough justices available to act as members of a confirming authority constituted as provided by subsection (2) of this section."
  This is in order to provide for licensing authorities which retain their commissions under Part III of the Third Schedule, or exceptionally under an order of the Lord Chancellor.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Mr. Manningham-Buller.
  Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Is it not intended to select the Amendment to Clause 16 which stands in my name—in page 13, line 33, at end, insert:
  "(d) With the consent of the Secretary of State there may be a magistrates' courts committee for an area or any part of an area which at the end of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, constituted a petty sessional division consisting of two or more contiguous non-county boroughs if at the aforesaid date each of such boroughs had a population of thirty-five thousand or over."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment is not selected because it is out of Order. It would increase the charge on the counties.
  Clause 18. —(POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEE AS TO PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISIONS.)
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, at the end, to insert:
  "(c) shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament."
  I think that this Amendment is in the right place although I have some doubts whether it should, with a slight alteration, be in line 1 or in line 8. I do not think this point was raised on the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would look at all these questions and I gather that he has had a talk about them with my right hon. Friend. I do not want to press the Amendment with any great vigour but it is a position which the right hon. Gentleman should be able to meet. It is a case in which it should be possible to pray against a statutory instrument. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to alter petty sessional divisions, and that power is of course exercisable without objection when the local authorities agree. There is no likelihood of a Prayer in those cases in which what is done is done by local agreement, but the House will see that the Secretary of State can override the local authority. Subsection (3) says that the Secretary of State may make an order:
  "either in the terms of the draft or with such modifications as he thinks fit; "
  Where a committee do not want to do what he wants, that is, where it fails to comply with a direction order, or the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with the draft order which they have sent or the report they have submitted in pursuance of such a direction:
  "he may by statutory instrument make such order as he thinks fit about the division into petty sessional divisions of the area to which the direction related."
  Where there is disagreement between the Secretary of State and the magistrates' courts committee representing the area as to the division of the area into petty sessions, and where the Secretary of State overrides the magistrates' courts committee, there ought to be power for those who represent that part of the country,

  2565
  wherever it may be, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House if they think fit to do so by putting down a Prayer against a statutory instrument. This power of the Secretary of State has to be exercised by a statutory instrument.
  This provision really gives him very dictatorial powers if, as the Bill in its present form says, he can override the magistrates' courts committee as to the division of the county into particular petty sessional areas. He can override it by statutory instrument, and if he does that no one can say anything about it. He has complete power delegated to him under this Clause. We can ask Questions and move to reduce this Vote, and that sort of thing, but we can do nothing effective. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been very good in meeting us on the earlier cases, that a case does exist for this one.
  I think that in Committee, when the question of Clause stand part was being discussed, I ought to have drawn his attention to this argument in addition to the others. I doubt whether, until this Amendment was put on the Order Paper, he had applied his mind to this question. Perhaps he has not had the time. I am not complaining, I am apologising for not having raised this particular point earlier. Having made that apology, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is some substance in the point and that he will accept this Amendment to meet it.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly said that he did not raise this matter when we discussed the general position on Committee, but my right hon. Friend did then undertake to 'consult with hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. He in fact wrote to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and later had a talk with him about the matter, and this Clause was not one of those raised at that time. But my right hon. Friend has given the most careful consideration to the desirability of having this Clause made subject to annulment by resolution in either House since the Amendment was put down in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We have come to the conclusion that in this case, although we have been most anxious
  2566
  to meet, and have met the hon. and learned Gentleman on other Clauses, it would be inappropriate to make the powers of the Secretary of State subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  The House will appreciate that in this matter the Secretary of State is dealing with questions which are really of local interest. He is concerned with matters which, at the most are ones of county administration in regard to the alteration of petty sessional divisions. Under the existing law, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is a matter for quarter sessions, which can deal, without any reference either to the Secretary of State or to Parliament, with the alteration of petty sessional divisions. But the procedure under the existing law is very cumbrous.
  This Clause institutes the new procedure by which the main responsibility for reviewing the county area and proposing alterations in the petty sessional divisions, if those are thought desirable, will repose with the magistrates' courts committee. That committee is required, in coming to a conclusion about these matters, to consult all the local authorities and the magistrates concerned, and to comply with requirements as to the notice to be prescribed, which it is intended should include a public notice of the proposals.
  The final responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. He is given power to cause a local inquiry to be held in the matter, and no doubt he would exercise that power if it appeared that there was local disagreement, and he might have to act in a way which would result in imposing some decision of his own against the wishes of some part of the area concerned. We think that in those circumstances the local interests are fully protected under this Clause in regard to what is after all a local rather than a national matter. There is no reason why Parliament, which has no concern with this problem at all at present under the existing law, should require the right to annul the action of the Secretary of State.
  The Clause provides every possible safeguard for the interests of the local authorities and ensures that local opinion is fully consulted and taken into account when an order is made. At the end of the day, after that has been done, and perhaps after a local inquiry has been held, the matter will still remain one of

  2567
  local concern. Moreover, if one were to add to the procedure under the Clause the further requirement that the order of the Secretary of State should be subject to the negative Prayer procedure in this House, there would be an additional delay of machinery which already will involve a considerable lapse of time before the Secretary of State is able to make his order. Indeed, there are some people who think that the Clause already provides for too much delay and too much local inquiry and consultation with local interests—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: And not enough centralisation.
  The Attorney-General:—and I hope that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that he need not press this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 20. —(QUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES' CLERK.)
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment, in page 18, line 7, in the name of the Home Secretary, is to be moved with two alterations in the wording on the Paper, namely, in paragraph (b) to delete, "in an employment," and after the word, "made," to insert: "after he has had five years' service as such an assistant and."
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18. line 7, at the end, to insert:
  "(3) A person who has not been bound by and served under articles as required by paragraph (a) of section fourteen of the Solicitors Act. 1932, but has served as assistant to a justices' clerk, may be admitted a solicitor of the Supreme Court, subject to the following provisions—

  (a) the person to be admitted shall have had not less than ten years' service as such an assistant and, out of that service, not less that five years shall have been before the 'first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty, and not less than the required number of years shall have been approved service;

  (b) for the purpose of the foregoing paragraph "approved service" means service either as an articled clerk or with respect to which the person to be admitted has obtained from the Law Society a certificate under this section on an application made after he has had five years' service as such an assistant and before the said first day of January, and the required number of years of approved service is the number which that person would, apart from this subsection, be required by the said Act to serve under articles entered into at the date of that application:

  2568

  (c) the Law Society may grant a person a certificate with respect to service in any employment as assistant to a justices' clerk if they are satisfied that at the time of granting the certificate it is not practicable for him to serve as an articled clerk in that employment, and the certificate shall relate to any service by him in that employment after that time;

  (d) subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Solicitors Acts, 1932 to 1941, shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a person's certificate under this section and a person applying for or obtaining such a certificate as if the certificate were articles of clerkship and the service to which it relates were service under those articles."

  We had a full discussion on this Amendment earlier this afternoon and it then commended itself generally to the House. I do not think it necessary to say anything further in support of it. The alterations which you have read out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, make known the essential difference to the Clause, and they are the result of negotiations I mentioned earlier which have been effected at very short notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, to leave out "fifty-five" and to insert "sixty."
  This also carries out an arrangement which is really part of the previous Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21.—(FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES' CLERK AS COLLECTING OFFICER.)
  Amendments made: In page 19, line 15, leave out from beginning, to end of line 20.
  In line 20, at end, insert:
  "and section four of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1949, shall apply to orders under any enactment directing payment to a justices' clerk as collecting officer on behalf of any person as it applies in relation to orders under the enactments mentioned in that section directing payment to him on behalf of a married woman."
  In line 26, leave out "1925," and insert "1949."
  In line 30, leave out, "under the said section thirty."
  In line 32, at end, insert:
  "Provided that, in relation to an order made under section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, on the application of the husband, there shall be substituted for the reference in this subsection to the applicant for the order a reference to his wife."
  In page 20, line 9, after "personally," insert:
  "and in relation to an order made under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section five of the Licensing Act, 1902, and not directing payment to the applicant's wife personally."
  In line 11, leave out from "1914.' to end of subsection.—[Mr. Ede.]
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ede—the Amendment in page 45, line 42.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. On the question of Clause 31, the Minister said during the Committee stage that he would reconsider that provision and an Amendment has been put down in my name to leave out that Clause so as to hear the result of that consideration.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker's marked Order Paper shows a query there. I understand that during the Committee stage the Amendment was withdrawn after 25 minutes' discussion.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was withdrawn when the Minister said that he would look at the position again. I have the passage in HANSARD from which I can quote.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman may move the Amendment.
  Clause 31. —(APPOINTMENTS UNDER PREVIOUS ACTS.)
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out Clause 31.
  This Amendment was tabled in this way to find out why it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come to the conclusion that Clause 31 was so perfect that it could not be improved upon. He will remember that earlier I drew attention to the fact that under subsection (2) the requirement of seven years' practice at the Bar immediately before appointment as a stipendiary magistrate was dispensed with, and that in future it would be quite enough for a person to become a solicitor, to be called to the Bar, never to practise either as a solicitor or as a barrister, and still be eligible for appointment as a stipendiary magistrate. That is setting a wide field.
  Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman moving the Amendment to delete Clause 31?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry if the hon. Member has got lost. I will try to put him on the right road again.
  Mr. Harrison: We were lost between the Amendments that were moved formally and the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now moving.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, that the hon. Gentleman is in such a fog. I fear that it may be a chronic condition, but I hope that it will ultimately, disappear.
  Mr. Harrison: The position is clear now.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad that the fog has been removed. If there are any other questions I can answer I shall be glad to do so.
  I should like to ask why the Clause has not been amended to make it clear that no one can be appointed to one of these responsible positions unless he has practised either as a solicitor or as a barrister. That requirement is not in this Clause. In, my opinion, it is a necessary requirement. It would be very bad if the field were so enlarged that anyone following another profession—a civil servant, a soldier or a sailor—could qualify as a barrister or as a solicitor and could carry on in their old profession for another seven years and become eligible for appointment. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend that. As a matter of drafting, I think he ought to have reworded the Clause to make it clear that that cannot be done. I must say that I am disappointed that he has not done so, and I should like to hear his reasons-for the omission.
  Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It is rather unsatisfactory to leave this, matter in its present position, because the Clause as drafted would allow the appointment of anybody who has never practised at all. It has always been part of the requirement of the law for appointment to the Metropolitan magistrates' bench that a man should have been a barrister in practice—not merely in practice but in practice in the seven

  2571
  years immediately preceding the appointment. I remember particularly this matter arising when an appointment was made during the war. I took up the question on that occasion. There was some question about whether the person appointed had actually practised in the period immediately preceding the appointment. It was suggested to me at the time that it was an unwise subject to pursue, inasmuch as many people were away at the war and if there was a literal requirement of having been in practice immediately before appointment, then on their return from war service people might be debarred from appointment because they had not been in practice but had been engaged on war service.
  It always seemed to me that the proper answer was to introduce legislation to deal with the point. It is a subject which would have met with general sympathy everywhere. The principle ought to be maintained that these appointments should require the person appointed to have been in practice and to have been in practice up to the time of appointment. Particularly is that so of the stipendiary magistrates' bench in Metropolitan police courts, because theirs is a difficult task. It is one which they must perform without great assistance from advocates. Very often they have to deal with cases with-out any advocate appearing on either side. They have to grasp rather quickly a number of different cases of a very varied type one after the other. In a morning's work they may be faced with a dozen different problems, all of them requiring not mere knowledge of law but that grasp and that quickness in dealing with the matter which can come only from constant years of practice and which the lawyer acquires almost as his second nature.
  It would be most unfortunate if a person engaged in some other entirely different occupation merely by reason of having qualified as a barrister should be capable of appointment, although he has had no experience whatever in practice. There are vast numbers of people who read for the Bar and pass the examinations and then go to some other occupation and never practise at all. I am bound to say, judging from some of those whom one has seen, that one would hesitate very much before appointing them
  2572
  to the magisterial bench. I hope that the Attorney-General will agree that this is a principle which ought to be safeguarded and that, unless some undertaking is given, the Clause as it stands ought to be deleted.
  The Attorney-General: We discussed this matter rather fully during the Committee stage of this Bill, and I think I promised the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that I would look into the position. I have looked into the matter and I hope that I shall not need to take up a great deal of time now in reviewing the position. I accept fully the general argument that candidates ought not to be appointed to positions of this kind without having had practical experience. I would add also what I think the hon. and learned Member's original Amendment in Committee did not contemplate, that it ought to be practical experience in this class of work—criminal experience—which should be taken into acount. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment that we considered in Committee provided only for practical experience in the practice of the law and not in any particular branch of it. I think that one can, so far as legal provisions are concerned, only provide for practical experience in the practice of the law.
  The view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry and the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) would be satisfied if one put in a provision that the barrister or solicitor concerned must have had experience in practice as such for seven years, notwithstanding the fact that the practice might have been in relation to patent or Chancery matters which could not fit him in the slightest degree for the duties of a stipendiary magistrate. We take the view that the Lord Chancellor in making these appointments should, of course, have regard to the extent to which the candidate for appointment has had practical experience in the practice of the law and, in particular, in the practice of that branch of it with which he will be concerned if and when he comes to be appointed as a stipendiary magistrate.
  Mr. Marlowe: That is precisely the argument which I used on qualified clerks, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejected.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, but I am dealing with the particular argument which the hon. and learned Member put forward with regard to this Amendment, and I do not think it would be useful to take up an argument which he used in regard to some other Amendment. We have looked at this matter and have come to the conclusion that it would not be useful to include the Amendment in the Bill, because it would not secure the kind of experience which all hon. Members agree it is desirable that stipendiary magistrates should have. To include any Amendment of that kind would be quite inconsistent with the existing law on the matter. It really would be impossible to require that candidates for appointment as stipendiary magistrates in the Metropolitan district should have these qualifications without a similar requirement in regard to stipendiary magistrates outside the Metropolitan district, in regard to recorders or in regard to the holders of high judicial appointments.
  These matters have hitherto been regarded as matters which might be safely left in the hands of the appointing authority, in this case the Lord Chancellor, who will have regard to all the circumstances and all the qualifications, and will not doubt pay the greatest attention to the question whether or not a candidate has had practical experience of the work of a magistrates' court. I hope that, in these circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my assurance and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. I would also point out a matter which has caused some confusion on this side of the House: that whereas in the Committee stage the hon. and learned Gentleman sought only to delete subsection (2) of this Clause, he now seeks to throw the whole Clause out of the Bill, and, according to my instructions, that is similar to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. May I point out that it was not my desire to inflict any cruelty on the baby, but that I thought this to be the simplest way to raise this particular point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule. —(PROVISIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON CHANGES IN COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.)
  Amendments made: In page 45, line 42, at end insert:
  "or in any order of the Lord Chancellor under section ten of this Act."
  In page 46, line 42, leave out from "for," to "shall," in line 44, and insert:
  "any of the cinque ports, other than a borough losing its commission."
  In line 49 at end insert:
  "(2) This paragraph shall apply in relation to the ancient town of Rye as if it were one of the cinque ports."
  In page 49, line 39, leave out from "of," to "which," in line 40, and insert "any borough."
  In line 44 leave out "those boroughs," and insert "any such borough."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Third Schedule.— (NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS RETAINING COMMISSIONS OF PEACE.)
  Amendment proposed: In page 54, line 26, leave out from "Cambridge" to end of Schedule, and insert:
  "Chesterfield
  Hove
  Luton
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Poole
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Swindon

  PART II
  Boroughs with a population between 35,000 and 65,000
  Accrington
  Ashton-under-Lyne
  Batley
  Bedford
  Chepping Wycombe
  Colchester
  Crewe
  Eccles
  Folkestone
  Gravesend
  Guildford
  Harrogate
  Keighley
  Kidderminster
  Kingston-upon-Thames
  Lancaster
  Leamington
  Leigh
  Lowestoft
  Macclesfield
  Maidstone
  Mansfield
  Margate
  Morecambe and Heysham
  Morley
  Nelson
  Port Talbot
  Ramsgate
  Reigate
  Richmond (Surrey)
  Rochester
  St. Alban
  Scarborough
  Shrewsbury
  Stafford
  Sutton Coldfield
  Torquay
  Tunbridge Wells
  Wallsend
  Wednesbury
  Weymouth and Melcombe Regis

  PART III
  Quarter sessions boroughs with a population between 20,000 and 35,000
  Bridgwater
  Deal
  Dover
  Grantham
  Hereford
  King's Lynn
  Newark
  Penzance
  Pontefract
  Salisbury
  Winchester
  Windsor."—[The Attorney-General.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. C. Williams: I should not like this occasion to pass without welcoming the fact that Torquay has been included in this list. It is the most distinguished name in that part of the list. May I also, as a West Country man with some Cornish connections, say how glad I am to see that Penzance has also been saved? It is one of the oldest boroughs in the country; in fact, Penzance was there long before the Saxons or anyone else came to this country, and is purely Celtic. I think every hon. Member would also join with me in saying that we are glad that Windsor is preserved as well. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now made up the list of those places which will be cut out, and whether he can tell us if it can be published.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule. —(MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1937, IN RELATION TO JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFF.)
  Amendment made: In page 59, line 30, at end, insert:
  "Provided that if, in the case of a justices' clerk who is a part time officer, it is not possible to determine on the said date whether he then becomes a contributory employee of the magistrates' qourts committee by virtue of any order of the Secretary of State under
  2576
  paragraph 1 of this Schedule (whether because his salary under section nineteen of this Act has not then been fixed or because the order gives him an option exercisable after that date or for similar reasons), the reference to be substituted in the said subsection (2) shall be a reference to the date on which it becomes possible to determine that question."—{The A ttorney-General.]
  Seventh Schedule. —(REPEALS.)
  Amendments made: In page 73, line 28, at end, insert:

  41 & 42 Vict. c. cxciii.

  The Ramsgate Improvement Act, 1878.

  Sections eighteen and nineteen.

  In page 76, line 17, column 3, leave out "Sections eighteen to," and insert:
  "Section eighteen from the words 'and from' onwards, so far as relates to the court of quarter sessions for the county of Kent or any division thereof; sections nineteen and."
  In page 77, line 3, column 3, leave out from beginning, to "the," in line 5.
  In line 23, column 3 at end, insert:
  "and subsection (3) of that section from ' and where' onwards."—[The Attorney-General.]
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I should like to express my thanks to the House for the help it has given in getting this Bill through in order that it may reach the Statute Book during the present Session. We have had a number of very interesting discussions during its passage. The discussion has not been exactly non-party, but perhaps was on inter-party lines, and views have been expressed in those circumstances with a freedom which has enabled the progress of the Bill to be followed with both interest and usefulness by those hon. Members who have participated in our deliberations.
  We have been dealing with some very great and historic institutions, and the House has, as usual, shown itself to be very tender in regard to the maintenance of the historic traditions of the country where they still play a part in the useful administration of our affairs. We have dealt with those courts which handle the great majority of cases which arise in the country, and it really is astounding to consider the numbers of cases dealt with in magistrates' courts. One then realises how tremendous is the work that has been

  2577
  done by them. It is therefore very desirable that, from time to time, we should review both their composition and their working so as to ensure that they can rightfully claim the allegiance of the country and that the people shall be satisfied that real justice will be done in them. As a result of our efforts we have, I think, brought these affairs up to date, and I sincerely hope that in their administration in the country they will justify the care and attention which has been given to them in this House.
  I particularly welcome the provisions by which the areas of petty sessional benches can, in future, be amended without the very cumbrous and almost unworkable procedure which has been followed in this country since 1828. Twice in my own experience I have tried to work it. Five magistrates have to present a petition that a certain area shall be altered, and then the whole of the areas of the county become open to amendment On both the occasions that I attempted to work it on behalf of a particular district, every other area in the county received consideration while that district was left untouched. However, I had the consolation of knowing that I had considerably improved the administration of justice elsewhere. It is a very good thing that we have been able to get rid of that archaic and cumbrous procedure and to substitute a method by which the magistrates actually concerned, through the magistrates' courts committee, will be able from time to time in future, and without that tremendous machinery being brought into operation, to arrange for the appropriate areas for the administration of justice in the country. I sincerely thank the House for the help they have given the Government in this matter.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure the House will appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is a Bill which crowns the efforts of one committee and one commission—Lord Roche's Committee and the Royal Commission presided over by Lord du Parcq. I have not inquired to see how long that committee and that commission took in their deliberations, but I am sure that we all owe a great debt to those who gave up their time on that work. Then this Bill, largely based upon that work, was introduced into the other place. I am
  2578
  sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in saying that it was subjected to a most careful and constructive criticism in the other place, with the result that it came here considerably improved.
  I must say that I think that we in this House have not wasted any time in our consideration of this Bill and that our efforts, too, have led to its improvement. That is really how Parliament should work. We have fully considered the position of unqualified assistants to justices' clerks. It was worthy of full consideration, and now a solution has been found which should deal with the matter satisfactorily. I think this House was right to reduce the ceiling with regard to the retention of the commissions of the peace, and I am, of course, glad that discretion has been given to the Lord Chancellor to preserve certain recorderships. At the same time, I do not think that we have wasted any Parliamentary time by devoting so much time to the consideration of this important Measure, for it is important.
  I must not, of course, discuss the Bill's omissions as otherwise I shall be out of Order; but people may look at this Bill and still find themselves very ignorant about advisory committees and how magistrates happen to be appointed. I hope that under this Bill we shall get that improved administration and organisation which is the desire of all of us, and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the careful consideration they have given on this Bill to all the questions raised from this side of the House and to thank them for meeting us in so many respects for improving the contents of this Measure.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: It is very agreeable to be able to endorse what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House can endorse what he said because, in a sense, he was patting us on the back and saying that we had improved the Bill. With great respect, I agree with him that i: t has been improved. It was a big and important Bill to start with, and it seems that one of its great merits was that while it did not hesitate to sweep away certain

  2579
  inefficient devices and outworn machinery, it also did not hesitate to keep in being things which were picturesque and had a long history behind them, and which were proved to be still of utility today. I think that is shown especially in the retention of the power by the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships. A discretion is now left with the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships of proved utility.
  It seems to me that there we have flexibility. There has been no worship of rigidity and uniformity for their own sake, though we on this side of the House are often accused of wanting both those things for their own sake. My right hon. Friend has led this side of the House in saying, and carried the House with him in saying, that rigidity or uniformity is not to be desired for its own sake. Flexibility is very often the thing which is desired, and it has been kept in this Bill.
  It has been said that this is a nonparty Measure. That, of course, is true in the sense that it has not given rise to controversy along party lines. Even when there has been a difference of opinion it has not been along party lines. But I submit that it should be claimed from this side of the House that this Bill is entirely in keeping with the principles of the party which is behind the Government. It has never been the principle of this party to do away with things merely because they are traditional or picturesque, though very often that is said.
  Indeed, it was said to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp), who referred to some remarks of mine as though they were sneering about tradition. I am very sorry that they should have appeared to him to be sneering because that was certainly not my intention. It is the principle of this party that if there is anything that is worth keeping by reason of its usefulness, something which is picturesque and which has a long history behind it, we do not hesitate to keep it. But we do show great courage in the matter of sweeping away those things which have lost their utility and have merely become a burden.
  I should like to congratulate the Government on this Measure. It is a landmark, but it is not a Measure which should be regarded entirely in isolation,
  2580
  It is one of a great series of legal reforms which have been introduced by the present Government, and another occasion upon which a crying legal need has been met, and that by the Labour Government. I think that we on this side are entitled to take great credit for it. There is the Criminal Justice Act, of which, of course, we are now gathering the first fruits in the courts, and the Legal Aid Bill which, for the first time, is bringing in—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, on the Third Reading of this Bill to discuss the Legal Aid Bill, because, if it is, I should like to have said something about it?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is going beyond the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I would not think of discussing the provisions of that Bill, but surely it is in Order to relate the provisions of this Bill, as I was intending to do, to other Measures. It is merely a link in a chain—a whole series of legal reforms. I was trying to relate the provisions of this Bill to that series to show how they have brought justice very much within reach of every man in the Kingdom, no matter how humble he may be.
  There was a time when those who administered justice in this country were drawn from a very restricted class. By reason of their economic situation they were supposed to have education, and many of them had. Now, of course, that choice has been widened, and this Bill makes a very handsome contribution to the sweeping away of yet another class barrier, in that it is widening still further the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and that by reason of the provision that is being made for the technical instruction, if one may put it that way, of those who are to hold judicial office as justices of the peace.
  Mr. Pannell: Elevation without pay.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I think I had better not go into that question. I was saying that this Bill is widening the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and I am certain that they will hold it with the credit to the benches upon which they sit.

  2581
  Perhaps I might also mention my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who have been principally concerned with the passage of this Bill through the House. The Home Secretary has devoted many years of his life to the study and practice of the administration of justice, and he is entitled to all the satisfaction he must feel at the present time for the great part which he has played in these reforms. As for the Attorney-General, who has with such patience and courtesy dealt with all the points that have arisen in our discussions, whether he has been prosecuting Albania at The Hague or prosecuting Haig at the Lewes Assizes, whether he has been probing into the intricacies and tortuosities of "spivdom" at Church House, or merely doing his duty in this House, he has done the whole thing with what I can only describe as almost monotonous brilliance to which we have become accustomed in this House.
  This is the 38th Parliament of the reign, and it is drawing to a close. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of pointing out that the next Parliament may be of a different political complexion. I do not know whether that is so, but I feel certain that this Bill shows that the vitality of the party which has a majority in this House has not diminished by one degree, and that that vitality will bring it back in the next Parliament to a position of control, secure in the esteem of the nation.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr, Marlowe: I believe it is possible to ascertain the cost of printing an hon. Member's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will remember to bring that particular cost into account in his election expenses. He has informed the House, what I am sure will be of great interest to the public, that this Parliament is drawing to a close, and he has thereby belied the Lord President of the Council who has been trying hard to pretend that we are going to meet again on 24th January.
  The hon. Gentleman has brought in a number of matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill, but were entirely directed to securing his return at the next Election. I am glad that he expressed himself as being in favour of
  2582
  the flexibility which occurs in this Bill. He has certainly been very flexible himself. He is now commending the Clause which was introduced into this Bill on the Report stage by the Attorney-General, relating to the saving of some recorderships. That Clause sprang from one initiated by this side of the House which, the hon. Member for Brigg strenuously opposed. He has now shown himself so flexible that he opposed it on the Committee stage and supported it wholeheartedly on the Report stage.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Is it not a fact that the Clause as produced by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and his hon. Friends was of quite a different nature and far wider in its extent; and does not the Amendment introduced by the Government show how flexible in its mind this Government is and always has been?
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman is wise in saying that our Clause was wider. Therefore it was more flexible. The hon. Gentleman is lending himself to the support of a more rigid provision and at the same time is trying to claim that it is flexible.
  I shall not take up further time of the House with the inconsistencies of the hon. Member for Brigg, but I feel called upon to take up a few minutes in view of the fact that an Amendment to which I had committed myself to give support has not been called on the Report stage because of the rules of Order. The Home Secretary will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee I referred to a problem which occurred in Becon-tree. That arises under Clause 16 of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion that he agreed there was a problem which required attention. His words were:
  "I recognise that there is a difficulty to be met here, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will arrange to see me about this-between now and the Report stage, I will see whether there is something we can do to meet the narrower point. I am sure he now agrees that any arrangement of this sort must be for contiguous boroughs. On that understanding I hope he will consent to withdraw his Amend ment so that we can get on."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c 1923.]
  On that understanding I consented to withdraw my Amendment. In due course a meeting took place between the parties

  2583
  interested. I do not think I am saying anything that I am not entitled to say in this matter. In fact, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman indicates his assent that. that meeting was arranged between those interested in this area, in which I am not interested at all except that the matter was brought to my notice and I was asked to represent their interests in the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is talking about an area which is not in the Bill He cannot refer to it because it is out of Order.
  Mr. Marlowe-: I was addressing myself not to an area which is not in the Bill but to a problem which is covered by the Bill in Clause 16—the creation of magistrates' courts for the areas which are referred to in that Clause. It is not possible to criticise the selection of Amendments, but I only wish that it had been possible to deal with the matter, which I understand was ruled out of Order on the assumption that it involved an increased charge, whereas the whole purpose of the Amendment was to save expense by aggregating the boroughs together.
  Mr. Speaker: It was ruled out of Order not because it would necessarily involve a charge but that it might possibly involve a charge. That put it out of Order on the Report stage.
  Mr. Marlowe: I had hoped that I "would do the Government a great service by placing an economy measure before them. If the matter remains out of Order I cannot pursue it further.
  There are two other points to which I wish to refer. It has been said with some justice by the hon. Member for Brigg that this Bill is part of a line of legislation improving the administration of justice in this country, but I can assure the hon. Member that that process started a long time before the present Government came into office. True, it is part of a process of improving the administration of justice, although not in the way which the hon. Member suggested. He prayed in aid
  2584
  that it was another implementation of the processes which include the Legal Aid Act. He omitted to remind the House that most of the beneficial provisions of the Legal Aid Act have been postponed owing to the Government having got the country's finances into such a state that they can no longer afford to implement those provisions. That is a part of the story which the hon. Member should have included.
  Certainly, as has been said, this Bill has been greatly improved in its passage through the House. It has become all the more improved by reason of the fact that it includes a paragraph, which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, and which has made a very considerable difference in the case of the borough of Hove. It therefore makes the Bill so much more a better Bill. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that improvement into the Bill, but of course it still remains a Bill of many compromises and it would be idle to pretend that in many respects it is wholly satisfactory. It has become a Bill of many compromises mainly because of the Government's programme, which has compelled the Government to push the Bill through rather more quickly than would have been the case had it followed the normal course.
  I think it was the Government's programme which made it necessary for this Bill to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs. Had the Committee stage been taken upstairs I think there would have been many greater improvements. As the right hon. Gentleman said, however, it is a Bill which effects many improvements which have required attention for a considerable time. It puts into effect some of the recommendations of the Roche Committee and of the du Parcq Commission and, so far as it achieves those purposes, it is, I think, a Bill which we should all welcome.

  ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 39, at end, insert new Clause—(Voting rights of certain persons coming of age during currency of register).

  (1) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary or local government election in a constituency or electoral area in Great Britain, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following fifteenth day of March, shall, if he is of full age on the fifteenth day of June in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act (which relates to registration rights) to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used and the reference in subsection (21) of that section to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at local government elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of those subsections to Great Britain, be construed accordingly.

  (2) A person who is not of full age on the qualifying date for a parliamentary election in a constituency in Northern Ireland, being an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within the period beginning with the second day of October in any year and ending with the next following first day of April, shall, if he is of full age on the thirtieth day of April in that year and is otherwise entitled so to do, be entitled to vote as an elector at that election, and the reference in subsection (1) of section eight of the principal Act to persons who may be entitled to vote as electors at parliamentary elections for which any register is to be used shall, in the application of that subsection to Northern Ireland, be construed accordingly.

  (3) Where, by virtue of subsection (6) of section one of this Act, any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary or local government election as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the expiration of the period so mentioned, the said subsection (1) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period; and where, by virtue of the said subsection (6 [), any part of the register to be used at such a parliamentary election as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section falls to be used at an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls after the period so mentioned, the said subsection (2) shall, as regards a person registered by virtue thereof in that part of the register, apply in relation to the election as it applies in relation to an election at which the date fixed for the poll falls within that period.

  2586

  (4) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act consequential to this section shall have effect for the purpose of making in the principal Act amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section.

  (5) This section and the Schedule to this; Act consequential to this section shall have effect with respect to elections for which registers to be published in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one and subsequent years are to be used and with respect to such registers and forms to be used for the purposes of such elections.

  (6) In this section and in the Schedule to this Act consequential to this section the expression "the principal Act" means the Representation of the People Act, 1949.

  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  When this Bill was before the House earlier, in Committee, an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) which raised the question of what was to happen to the people who would have come on the register at the half-year in which, in future, no register will be published, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook to report to me the feeling of the House in the matter. I also had the advantage of reading the report of the discussion which took place and it seemed to me that if it were possible, without imposing any serious additional expenditure on either the taxpayer or the ratepayer, then it was very desirable that some arrangement should be made whereby in practice the advantages of a six months' register should be preserved.
  The Amendments which were made in another place secure that. What will happen in future will be that when the canvass is made for the annual register a space will be provided on the form which will enable the householder to enter the names of those persons who, though not 21 on the qualifying date for the annual register, will become 21 before the day on which the intermediate register would have been compiled in the old way. Those people will come into full electoral benefit, if I may use that phrase, on 2nd October in every year.
  I think this meets the point that was. before the House. It does not deal with all the people who might have come on to the register. There are, for instance, people who are naturalised during the six months and who become eligible,

  2587
  therefore, for entry on the register, but of course those people cannot say with certainty when the annual register is compiled that they will be naturalised half-way through the year. There are also, of course, a number of British subjects who may come from abroad and who similarly will not be able to get on to the register, but I think those qualified by reason of attaining the age of 21 are the overwhelming majority of the people concerned and I think the arrangement we have made will meet the point about them.
  It is astonishing how many words it takes in a Bill to achieve an apparently simple purpose. I am assured that all these words are necessary to achieve the purpose which the House had in mind and I commend the Amendment to the House in the belief that it fully carries out the point which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook to consider.
  Mr. Speaker: I should point out that this involves a question of Privilege and, if it is carried, the necessary entry will be made in the Journals.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: During the discussion on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) which had a similar object in view to that which is effected by the Amendment made in another place, I intervened in support of the Amendment, which seemed to me to be quite unexceptionable in principle and highly desirable if, in fact, it could be achieved without great administrative difficulty or great additional expense. We therefore welcome what the Home Secretary has seen his way to do, the effect of which is that if an election falls at any time during the months between October and March a large number of young persons whose enfranchisement would have been postponed by the abolition of the second of the two annual registers will be enabled to cast a vote. They would otherwise have been disqualified from doing so. I must confess that I have much more sympathy with this class of young person, whose position is being safeguarded by this Amendment, than I have with those other persons who acquire British nationality by naturalisation—the persons to whom the right hon.
  2588
  Gentleman has referred and to whom he he been unable to extend these provisions.
  I should like to ask a question as to what additional cost, if any, it is now estimated will fall upon local authorities and upon the Exchequer as a result of the addition of these names in a supplementary list. We have had very unsatisfactory experience in the past on this question of finance. Both the Prime Minister in his broadcast and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in this House on the economies clearly stated that the saving to the Exchequer by the abolition of the second annual register would be £800,000. When we got to the Committee stage of the Bill we were told that that saving would be divided equally, to the amount of £400,000 each, between the Exchequer and the local authorities, but a few days later, at Question time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a third correction which was that the saving to the Exchequer alone would be £650,000, and no doubt a similar saving is anticipated as likely to accrue to the local authorities.
  When the principle of this Amendment was debated in Committee on 29th November, the Under-Secretary of State, who was in charge, said:
  "If the charge suggested by my hon. Friend were to be introduced at all it should, of course, be done on a much more comprehensive basis, but I think there is no doubt that if one did so attempt it would go some distance at least to defeating the object of the Bill, which is to simplify procedure and to reduce the costs involved in compiling more than one register."
  He went on to mention the figure of additional cost of this proposal forecast by the hon. Member for Hornchurch—a figure which the hon. Member for Hornchurch put at £15,000. The Under-Secretary of State said:
  "I do not know where my hon. Friend got the figure of £15,000 which, I think, he suggested … but I am afraid I cannot accept that the extra cost or the amount of additional labour which would be made necessary by this new Clause is as inconsiderable as the hon. Member suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 1050–51.]
  I am quite sure that before adopting these proposals the Home Office must have given some consideration to the additional cost these proposals would involve and the amount by which the amendment will reduce the latest estimate of the saving effected by the abolition of the second register—an estimate of

  2589
  £650,000. I would hope that before we part with this Amendment we shall be told by how much the annual saving will be diminished as a result of accepting this proposal.
  Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, I would say that my own belief is that the extra cost of this will be really negligible. It really is the extra cost of printing what may be some 350,000 names spread over the registers for over 600 constituencies. I do not think that on that basis the cost will be very considerable. We have, of course, endeavoured to secure that these names shall be picked up during the course of the ordinary registration. I suppose that if one went into the exact cost one would find that the most costly item of all would be the time taken in some households in writing in one or two additional names on the register. I propose that there shall be space for two names on the forms sent out, because that will allow for twins, and I do not think we should be expected to provide for those families in which fecundity on some occasions is rather higher than that; and if we came across triplets or quadruplets or even quintuplets I have no doubt that their names could be inserted between the lines.
  Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Resolved:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty."—[Mr Ede.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.
  Resolved:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations. 1939,
  2590
  which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty."—[Mr. Ede.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
  Resolved:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales (Membership) Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 24th November."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or by Members of His Majesty ' s Household.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) MEASURES
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: I beg to move,
  "That the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."
  When the Reorganisation Areas Measure was passed in 1944 to enable the Church of England to replan its own organisation in blitzed areas and areas of civil replanning, it included a standstill arrangement to prevent the new arrangements from being held up by fresh life appointments to any benefices that became vacant. The procedure under the 1944 Measure is that the area has first to be declared a reorganisation area by an order of the Church Commissioners. That is only to be done after considering any representations from the parishes concerned. It ensures full publicity.
  Once the order has been made, if a benefice is vacant or becomes vacant the bishop may stop a new vicar being put in by the patron. That, of course, is necessary, for otherwise reorganisation may be hampered. Often in these blitzed areas the church has been destroyed, and often the population has not returned. Under the civil plan it may never return. In such circumstances a standstill is only common sense.

  2591
  This does not mean that the parish is neglected. The bishop has to make all necessary provision for the care of the people in the parish, and he has to consult both the patron and the parochial church council before he settles what ought to be done. Proper arrangements are made, but on a temporary footing. This power to restrict new life appointments in the Measure of 1944 was, however, limited to three years from the declaratory order or the vacancy. At that time everyone hoped that three years would be long enough, but ecclesiastical replanning has to follow and accord with civil replanning, and we all know that the process is more intricate and takes much longer than was expected in 1944. It is going ahead, but the plans are not yet passed.
  This Measure extends the period from three years to 10 years. Ten years is chosen because that is the maximum time within which, under the 1944 Measure, proposals for an ecclesiastical reorganisation scheme can be entertained by the Commissioners. The two periods are made the same. The two Measures will be read as one. The Measure was considered by the Church Assembly, and passed without a dissentient voice. There was never greater unanimity. The proposed Measure has been considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it is commended to the House.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I beg to second the Motion.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: I beg to move,
  "That the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1946 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."
  This Measure has been circulated with the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the appendix to which contains a full statement of the object of the Measure and of the effect of the three principal Clauses. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary that I should detain the House with detailed explanations. The object of the principal Measure, which expires in 1956, is to enable the filling of vacancies in benefices to be postponed,
  2592
  and also to make provision for the cure of souls in the parishes affected and the exercise of the incumbents' powers in respect of the beneficed property during the vacancy. This postponement is often necessary where a decision as to reorganisation is pending.
  This Measure introduces a number of minor amendments which have been thought advisable either because of recent alterations in the law or because of the experience gained in the working of the principal Measure. The proposed amendments have the full approval of the Church Assembly, which passed this Measure through all its stages without a division. As the House will also see, the Ecclesiastical Committee have reported that no amendment by itself is of great importance, but that the combined effect of all of them is to clarify the principal Measure and to improve its administration, and that the rights of none of His Majesty's subjects are prejudicially affected.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I bog to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

  OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORATION (AIR CONTRACTS)
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gage: The matter which I desire to raise tonight—namely, the question of preferential treatment of the British Overseas Airways Corporation by the Overseas Food Corporation—is one of some gravity, and I think the House will agree when they hear the facts that it is one on which an urgent explanation is required from the Parliamentary Secretary. The facts are these. From its inception the Overseas Food Corporation have had to find air transport for many of their personnel between London and Dar-es-Salaam. At first, the arrangements that they came to were on an individual basis, whereby various members of the Corporation should be carried, as to about 50 or 75 per cent., by B.O.A.C. at £146 per seat, and as to the remainder by individual private charter companies at £120 per seat. I do not think that any great criticism can

  2593
  be made of that arrangement at that stage, bearing in mind that the Corporation was, as it were, in its infancy, and that it of ' course takes a little time for corporations to find their feet in these matters.
  However, the discrepancy between the prices charged by B.O.A.C. and the individual private charter companies of £26 per passenger was very soon noted. I understand that officials of the Overseas Food Corporation went to B.O.A.C, pointed this out, and suggested that as most of the personnel being transported from East Africa to London and vice versa were Overseas Food Corporation officials B.O.A.C. might do something about reducing their charges. The answer of B.O.A.C. to that was a flat refusal. So, quite properly—and I do not think any criticism can be made at this stage—the officials of the Overseas Food Corporation proceeded to approach the reputable charter companies in London. As a result of that, a charter company, which I understand is of very good standing, called Hunting Air Travel Limited was selected.
  Negotiations commenced with a view to a long-term contract—which of course was more sensible than buying individual seats—which was to last at any rate a year, or to be renewed each year. It was negotiated, and the price per seat—and this, I think, is very significant in a contract of this nature—was £63 6s. 8d. The price that they had been paying to B.O.A.C. on an individual basis was £ 146-odd. Of course, that price of £63 6s. 8d. was to be on the basis of 100 per cent. load factor. That meant a saving to the Overseas Food Corporation of about £100,000 a year.
  Not unnaturally, this woke B.O.A.C. up, and instead of the flat refusal which had been given earlier they came along to see the officials of the Overseas Food Corporation. In October, 1948, there was a meeting—and it is of some significance—between Lord Pakenham, Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Charles Lockhart. Now I think that is an unfortunate way of doing business. Private charter companies cannot approach such high personages, holders of such important offices in our country, and I think it should be left to the officials themselves, whose business it is, to do this. However, there was a meeting, and I am happy to say that the Minister of Civil Aviation
  2594
  appears to have rejected the view of B.O.A.C. that simply because they were a Government Corporation they were entitled, as it were, to be assisted, and to some extent subsidised, by another Corporation. He rejected that view, and as a result Huntings got the contract.
  I understand that the contract was carried out perfectly satisfactorily and properly for the period of one year. It was due either to expire or to be renewed—I understand it could expire by notice—on 1st November of this year. Before that certain things happened. The first thing was that in the summer of 1949 a senior official in the Ministry of Civil Aviation drew the attention of an official in the Ministry of Food to certain Questions that had been asked in the House about charter companies operating in contravention of Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act. The House will know that that was a very proper Section to put in, making it an offence for a private charter company not to pay their servants and staff a proper salary. Of course, it was quite right that that should be so, but the scarcely veiled suggestion in that official letter was that the Overseas Food Corporation might possibly be conniving at an offence as Huntings were paying their people below the proper amount. That was at once investigated by the Overseas Food Corporation and found to be quite wrong. In fact, the staff of Huntings were being properly paid, in some cases in excess of B.O.A.C. I need hardly say that, if an action such as that had occurred in private business it might well have laid the foundation for a substantial action for defamation. However, as it came to nothing I pass to the second matter, which I think is even more important.
  B.O.A.C. started negotiations to submit a tender so as to obtain the contract themselves, and on 27th July, 1949, a highly important and significant meeting took place between representatives of B.O.A.C. and representatives of the Overseas Food Corporation. The first thing B.O.A.C. representatives said at that meeting was this: that there had been a luncheon between Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Leslie Plummer at which it had been agreed that B.O.A.C. were to get the contract. Now, of course, at that time the representatives of B.O.A.C. did not know the amount for which Huntings were tendering, and they

  2595
  were asked what they proposed to tender. They made a tentative approach of £80 a seat, and were told that that was quite unacceptable.
  At that point there took place a very significant thing. Mr. Ormerod, who was one of the Overseas Food Corporation officials present, left the conference; he visited Mr. McFadyen, who is Vice-Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation; he returned to the conference and said that his instructions were that B.O.A.C. were to have the contract, provided they could quote within 10 per cent. of the Huntings contract. At that point, of course, all that the B.O.A.C. officials needed to know in order to make things quite simple for them was the amount of the new Hunting's tender. There again matters were made easy for them, because a Mr. Somerville and Mr. Ormerod left the meeting, went to Mr. Somerville's office and there worked out Hunting's figures for an 85 per cent. load factor—because Huntings had tendered a! a 100 per cent. load factor increasing to a 90 per cent. load factor, which was some £66 per seat. They then added 10 per cent. and found that the answer came to £72 10s. a seat.
  They returned to the conference, and the B.O.A.C. officials were informed that if they quoted at that amount they could have the contract. There is no offence known to the law in allowing this matter to become known to people, who, although a Government corporation, were, after all, competing for this contract. There was nothing for which the law could punish any of these people, but I think that I am right in saying that morally such a course was most questionable and it was quite improper.
  It is not surprising that as a result of this, on 28th July, B.O.A.C. put in a tender for £72 10s. a seat, which was accepted on 29th July. Notice to terminate the Hunting agreement was given the same day to expire on 1st November. On 1st October this year, a new contract embodying these terms was signed between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation. The result of all this is, that in order that these two great Government corporations should help each other, the taxpayer has to bear the burden of an additional 10 per cent. per seat over the amount which could have been negotiated
  2596
  with Hunting's. When I say that the Overseas Food Corporation are now carrying about 2,500 personnel per year, that is not a small matter and no small' loss to the taxpayer.
  That is not all, because if one wants to buy a ticket to Dar-es-Salaam B.O.A.C. charge £146, and their operational figures on the cost of such a flight work out at £122 10s., so by tendering at £72 10s. they are loosing £50 for every person carried, and that is a burden which the taxpayer must also shoulder. So in order that these two corporations shall assist each other, the taxpayer takes on a really ' heavy burden.
  There is even a worse aspect because when the Civil Aviation Bill was in Standing Committee it was recognised by many hon. Members that this great Government monopoly might be in a position to crush out of existence private companies by a system of what might be called subsidised competition. By being heavily subsidised they might be able to tender much lower than any private company could. The Government's attention was drawn to this not once but on many occasions. If hon. Members care to look at the proceedings in Standing Committee of 23rd May, 1946, they will see that this matter was raised on many occasions, and on each occasion the hon. Gentleman who was then in the position that the Parliamentary Secretary is in now gave an assurance that this would not be done. The matter was returned to later on 19th June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) expressed himself as somewhat dissatisfied with the assurance that had been given, and said that he wanted more than the personal assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said:'
  "As I said at an earlier stage of the Committee, he may be promoted—let us hope so—or he may disappear—let us not hope so—but in any case, we cannot rely on him being there permanently and on his always being able to see that what he has said in Committee will be implemented."
  That was answered by the hon. Gentleman, who said:
  "The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of grants for charter services. I shall not deal with that at length because we have already dealt with it at great length. I gave a pledge that public money would not be used for under-cutting private firms in respect of charter work. On several occasions,

  2597
  it has been explained that it is not possible to write a statutory provision into the Bill for that purpose, but the undertaking which I gave was given, after due consideration, in the name of the Government, and whether I remain in this office or disappear in any manner—either by the trapdoor or the ladder—is irrelevant to the point. So long as I speak here, I do so in the name of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th June, 1946; c. 667–8.].
  Here was an undertaking given on behalf of the Government in the firmest possible terms. There can be no doubt, I think, that the very evil that the hon. Gentleman undertook should not occur has now, in this particular case, come to pass.
  Finally, in the contract—and this, perhaps, is also a serious matter—with British Overseas Airways Corporation, it was agreed that if the personnel should exceed an anticipated amount, B.O.A.C. would be entitled to charter a special flight carrying 39 passengers at £5,000 per plane. If the personnel exceeded the amount set out in the contract, which seemed very likely judging by the rate at which these air journeys are increasing, it would cost the taxpayer, even if only one person went in this special plane, £5,000. Even if the plane was full, it would cost them about £127 per person. I have tried, with the means that are available to me, to be as precise and accurate in dealing with this matter as I can. I think that I am entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary either to deny or confirm the facts which I have given. If they are correct, I think that I am justified in saying, as I said at the outset of my remarks, that this is an urgent matter of which an explanation is required.
  There is, of course, also the matter of the internal arrangements in East Africa with regard to these charter companies, about which I should like information. I should like to know, for instance, whether one contract was negotiated with Airwork Ltd. at 10s. a mile which was afterwards increased to 14s. a mile. If that is so, I should like to know why, and I should also like to know whether a contract was made with Skyways, Ltd. for a Dakota at 7s. 6d. per mile, and is not that amount 30 per cent. above current rates. If so how can that be justified. There is also a subsidiary question about which we are entitled to inquire which concerns these 2,500 gentlemen who apparently find it neces-
  2598
  sary to travel by air between Dar es Salaam and London. We should like to know in how many cases their journeys are really necessary. The main question, however, remains—the agreement between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation.
  These are serious charges. Here are. two great Government corporations that appear to have flouted completely the undertakings given by the Government on behalf of B.O.A.C. They use great resources to filch from respectable private charter companies lucrative contracts which they were operating perfectly satisfactorily, and all at the expense of the public whose interests they are supposed to serve.
  7.21 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has stated the facts of the case from the information at his disposal. At the end of his speech he referred to contracts stated to have been made between the Overseas Food Corporation and Airwork, Limited and the Overseas Food Corporation and Skyways. I have no information about these contracts, because they are purely commercial arrangements between two organisations and have no relationship to my Ministry. No doubt the information could be obtained from the Ministry of Food.
  It is stated that at one time there was a contract between the Overseas Food Corporation and Hunting Air Travel, Limited, for the bulk carriage of traffic between two given points, and that later on a change-over was made from one firm to another following the re-issue of tenders. Surely there is nothing much to complain of in the fact that the corporations are so commercial that they can meet in open competition the tenders of other concerns. The corporations are in a special position which enables them to do it.
  The hon. Member stated, in all good faith, that these 2,500 people are being carried by B.O.A.C. at £72 10s. I accept the figure, because I do not know what it is. The hon. Member then went on to say that this is below the normal rate for the journey, and that it means a loss for the Corporation. That is not the case. If

  2599
  the amount is £72 10s., it is additional revenue for the Corporation. For every passenger carried the deficit of the Corporation is reduced by that amount. A normal scheduled service runs on this route between this country and Africa. To put it in transport language, this is a "fill-up" load. Any vacant seats that are available on these aircraft are taken up by these people at the reduced rate. It means that where there was previously a 60 per cent. load factor, there is now a 100 per cent. load factor, and that this extra 40 per cent. at the cheap rate is a contribution towards reducing the Corporation's deficit.
  There is nothing new about this. It is the normal method of running a transport undertaking. I have often said that I was a railwayman prior to entering this House. On the railways we had group tickets and special facilities for ramblers, parties and tours, which made an additional contribution to meeting our overheads and were therefore encouraged. In the case of freight traffic, we had a rate book classifying merchandise and special rates for manufacturers who wished to convey goods in bulk from one place to another. We even had agreed charges that were outside the rate book. I am not personally acquainted with shipping, but from my slight acquaintance with coastwise shipping I have reason to know that the same considerations apply. I believe, too, they apply to what is termed the "long sea haul."
  This is traffic which arises on the normal scheduled routes of the Corporation. It is a special traffic which is used as a fill-up load, and it makes a contribution to the revenue of the Corporation without adding a single penny to the costs, apart from such minor things as loading and invoicing. We cannot accept the inference that the cream of the traffic on a given scheduled route shall be given only to charter companies. If bulk traffic is to be creamed off, it means that we are condemning the scheduled services to run at a loss.
  Mr. Gage: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that this was an agreement for a scheduled service? It was an agreement for bulk carrying.
  Mr. Lindgren: I agree. When one is closely associated with a subject, there is a tendency to use phrases that are not
  2600
  clear to others. The Overseas Food Corporation are engaged upon a particular undertaking and at a particular place, and of necessity a large amount of traffic in personnel and merchandise arises. It arises on an ordinary scheduled service of the Corporation, and therefore it is normal to expect the traffic to go on that scheduled service. The Overseas Food Corporation, being a commercial undertaking, thought that they should get their traffic carried at the cheapest possible rates. They said that as this traffic was in bulk, we should give them special rates, but they were not available with B.O.A.C, so they put out tenders for the traffic. I think that B.O.A.C. tendered at the same time as Huntings, but Huntings' tender was lower on the first occasion, and the B.O.A.C. tender was lower on the second occasion.
  Mr. Gage: I did not say that the second B.O.A.C. tender was lower. On the contrary, it was 10 per cent. higher, and the contract was obtained by discovering Huntings' tender and adding 10 per cent.
  Mr. Lindgren: I accept that in all good faith as coming from the hon. Member. I am not in a position to verify his statement, but if it is correct it is a very strange way of fixing up a contract. I am in no position whatever, certainly on the information available to me—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the charter was arrived at in that way?
  Mr. Harrison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the charter companies were in possession of full information about B.O.A.C. charges or proposed charges?
  Mr. Lindgren: In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), I am in no position to deny the statements which have been made by the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Member for South Belfast generally does his best to make sure that the statements he makes in this House are based on accurate information, and I accept what he said. I have no information available to me, and I cannot contradict them. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison), I would point out that the only information available to Huntings

  2601
  Air Travel, Limited, was the normal passenger rate available on B.O.A.C. scheduled services, the knowledge of the operational cost of the aircraft and their assumption of what the charge was likely to be.
  There is, however, one point on which the hon. Member for South Belfast has been completely led astray by those who have given him the information which he has put before the House tonight, and which may show that some of his other information is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. Member said that during the time the Huntings contract was in operation, my Ministry drew the attention of the Overseas Food Corporation to the fact that Huntings were not observing the fair wages clause. That is correct. I think it was absolutely right for my Ministry to call the attention of the contracting department to the fact that their contractors were not observing the fair wages clause. That applies to any contract under any conditions.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is of great importance to a reputable private firm. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this firm did not observe the fair wages clause because, if so, as that clause is virtually enshrined in an Act of Parliament, why was no action taken if the charge were true, which it is not?
  Mr. Lindgren: What I have said is correct and what the hon. Gentleman has just said is incorrect. Further, B.A.L.P.A. took Huntings to the Industrial Court and an award was made against them last August.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If all this was known, surely it is inconceivable that Huntings and other private companies should have been asked to tender for a further period. Our charge is that tendering was reduced to a farce, because the decision had been arrived at to give the tender to a sister Corporation.
  Mr. Lindgren: This argument started with my contradicting the argument of the hon. Member for South Belfast, made in all good faith, that this firm have honoured Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which is now covered by Section 15 of the 1949 Act. The Ministry had good reason to believe that Huntings
  2602
  were not observing the provisions of Section 41, and the observance of this Section was a condition of the contract. That was subsequently proved to be the case because B.A.L.P.A. took Huntings, with a large number of other charter companies, to the Industrial Court and got an award made against them. My information, as late as last week, was that in spite of the fact that B.A.L.P.A., as a result of the Industrial Court award, had been trying to get an agreement with these firms, through their Air Charter Association, no satisfactory conclusion had been come to as a result of the negotiations. I do not intend to mince any words about air charter operations. Apart from one or two of the larger charter companies, there is not a single charter firm which is observing the fair wages clause.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked why we went through the farce of asking these firms to tender when they were not observing the fair wages clause, and we knew they would not observe it. The air charter business is new and—if I may express a personal view—I have pointed out the desirability of creating a recognised list of those firms which honourably accept wages and conditions in the industry as being fair. Some of the trade unions in the industry have said, "Do not go along too quickly. We will try to encourage these firms to come to an agreement with us." I must say that B.A.L.P.A. in particular, acting on behalf of the pilots, have been most reasonable in their attempts to secure agreements with these firms. I hope we shall soon come to a position in which certain firms which will not recognise the rates as being fair, will be excluded from the opportunity to tender. This is now under discussion by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, which is the joint industrial council dealing with wages and conditions within the industry.
  To sum up this was a tender secured in fair and open competition as between two air operators. Instead of increasing the deficit of the Corporation, it increased the revenue without any additional cost being incurred. It is said that there is a condition in the contract that if the traffic cannot be carried by the normal scheduled service, an additional aircraft must be provided and that because of that, the Corporation are entering the

  2603
  charter field. I cannot accept the inference that bulk traffic such as this is available only to charter companies. It is available, so long as it is real charter work and they enter it on a real charter basis. The Corporation is available to offer special rates for particular traffic.
  The hon. Member for South Belfast made the point that undertakings have been given in this House—he could have gone further and quoted undertakings given in another place—that the Corporations would not enter the charter field. That assurance, in the terms in which it was made, still operates and this in no way infringes it. Charter operations are in the field of traffic of either personnel or merchandise. They are to take a particular load at a particular time from one particular place to another. That field of activity is still open to the charter companies. The Corporation are not entering it. If there is a special load to come from Rome or to go somewhere else, or a special crew to go here, there or anywhere, that is for the charter companies, and the Corporation are not going to enter the special charter field. It is going to enter the field in its own schedule services, thereby securing the maximum possible revenue from the services which it operates, as well as operating as economically as it is possible for it to do.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he elaborate the statement about fair wages which he has made? Is he saying that the charter companies are not paying the agreed rate of wages as laid down in negotiations?
  Mr. Lindgren: I have said in this House on many occasions—and we want to get it clear—that apart from one or two of the air charter companies, there is not a single air charter firm which is paying the rates of wages and honouring the conditions of service which are in accordance with the National Joint Council of Civil Air Transport. They are, in fact, paying under the rate and working under conditions which are considered unfair.
  Mr. Speaker: Sir William Darling.
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of procedure. The hon. Gentleman the
  2604
  Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), of course, has a right to speak, especially if you, Mr. Speaker, called him, but it is rather unusual on an Adjournment Debate after a Minister has made a speech for that particular Debate to continue. I want to make it clear that if it is suggested that the Minister should further reply, I shall feel very much inclined to object.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that he will object to the Minister speaking again. The Minister can only speak by leave of the House, and if anyone objects he cannot speak, so that is that.
  7.42 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I am grateful for that introduction by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Apparently I do not speak by leave of Mr. Speaker, but by leave of the hon. Member for Ipswich. However, even he will agree that this is a matter of the greatest public interest. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual enthusiasm, has made a lengthy but not to me very satisfactory explanation of the circumstances as he sees them. He has been ingenuous in a number of matters. He compared his experience in railway traffic with his experiences in the office which he now holds. The comparison was between the competition of the railways seeking to enlarge their profit and opportunity and, for example, the bus companies. In those circumstances he said quite rightly that it was legitimate for the one to do what it could do to get business from the other. But we are discussing not equal competitive units in an industry, but the power and authority of a great national corporation and an independent company. The hon. Gentleman has made observations which, while germane to the other circumstances, are quite inappropriate in these circumstances.
  The Debate has revealed the extraordinary circumstance that the Government are, apparently, empowered to operate a fair wages clause which they are not operating. The Parliamentary Secretary reminded the House many times that the fair wages clause is not operated except in a few of the larger charter companies in that industry, but if that is so, the responsibility would be on the Parliamentary Secretary and not with the charter companies at all.
  Mr. Lindgren: The responsibility so far as my Ministry is concerned only lies as and when those firms are employed on Government contracts. That equally applies to the firm and to the air corporations which are associated with the company. If a charter company pays unfair rates and asks its employees to work under unfair conditions, it is a direct matter for the trade unions and the company. We only come into it if, in fact, there is a Government contract.
  Sir W. Darling: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for further amplifying the position because it makes it even more clear that I am right in what I have said. Will the hon. Gentleman disagree that a contract from the Overseas Food Corporation is a Government contract, and that it is being carried out by a charter company which is not paying wages in accordance with a fair wages clause? His recent explanation seems to me to bring the matter nearer to his door step. He is agreeing that the Government have had a contract with an independent air line which is not carrying out the fair wages clause. He is at fault beyond all admission.
  Mr. Lindgren: This is a serious matter, and it ought to be cleared up as we go along. During his speech the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the Overseas Food Corporation was told by my Minister that this firm was not considered to be operating Section 41 of the Act. The firm, I believe, stated that in their opinion they were operating it. They were not, and the trade unions took them to the industrial court and secured an industrial award against them. Surely the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) is not going to say that the industrial court award given against the firm, does not support the contention that they were not, in fact, honouring the fair wages clause and the conditions of employment?
  Sir W. Darling: The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised not to be so long in these explanations because the more he says, the more does he confirm that what I am saying is right. I repeat, the Overseas Food Corporation, a public body, were allowed to enter into a contract over which the Minister of Civil Aviation had direct control and
  2606
  that they were not operating the fair wages clause. They were brought to the industrial court and a ruling was made against them. I accept that, but it still remains unchallengeable that the Ministry of Civil Aviation in this matter have been dilatory. They have been neglectful in. their duty, and the charge that the fair wages clause is not operated adequately in the charter companies goes by default.
  I want as a member of the taxpaying public to make a more general observation. This particular company, Hunting Air Travel, Ltd., is a company which operates for profit. I am informed that it makes a good profit, and that goes to relieve the heavy burden of taxation which the Parliamentary Secretary and I among many others have to bear. The effect of the operations of this powerful monopoly, which the Parliamentary Secretary represents, is going to put Hunting Air Travel, Ltd. out of business, and that will add further to the burdens of taxation which we have to bear. Is that the policy to which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer lend their support? Is it in the public interest that companies contributing to national efficiency and making substantial contributions towards taxation are to be driven out of business by State monopolies which are making a loss? Is that the kind of finance the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to endorse?
  Finally, the conclusion that was thrust upon me by the very careful statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) is that this will not be the first of these activities. In this House of Commons we are going to hear of independent traders, representing 80 per cent. of the industry of this country, being increasingly driven out of business by State monopolies, which are run at the expense of the taxpayer. What will be the effect of that 10 years from now, when companies like the Hunting company go out of business and there are no standards by which to judge? When the Government have driven every competitor out of the business what will be the result? Will there be a more efficient system? Is the Parliamentary Secretary claiming this and no more—that he wants to see out of business all the competent, private operators who at

  2607
  present are making profits and are operating good public services? When these are removed from the industry then his own sweet will will prevail without any challenge. I fear that.
  This issue of Hunting versus Ministry of Civil Aviation is probably, important though it may be, a minor one in the larger scheme of things. This is the battle of the very near future: whether monopolist corporations, established by the State, subsidised, organised and controlled by the State, and run by boards nominated by the political party in power, are to dominate our lives. This attack upon the Hunting company is the prelude to a series of attacks of a very much wider character. I speak with very real concern and alarm for this possibility which I do not think is very remote, when the British Overseas Airways Corporation will be the unchallenged master of the air, and, I fear, the unchallenged master of the pockets of the British taxpayer.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before I start my relatively brief speech, it is well that we should clear up this question of what constitutes fair competition in the air. The Parliamentary Secretary lurched into a series of wild accusations against a large number of people, whom he is, nevertheless, very glad to see carrying out important business and whom the Government were very glad to use to carry out the Berlin airlift. The Parliamentary Secretary made his charges on the basis which we advance that the Hunting company did not lose this contract because of any question of unfair competition. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, he will remember that the charter undertakings have either to observe the same conditions of employment as any one of the three Corporations, or to observe various other conditions which are under separate heads. The two relevant ones are that the terms and conditions:
  "(b) are in accordance, with an agreement for the time being in force between the undertaking and organisations representative of the persons employed; or
  (c) are in accordance with any decision for the time being in force of a joint industrial council … "
  2608
  I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was suggesting that the Hunting Air Company, or Airwork, who were also a tendering party in this transaction, did not have an agreement for the time being in force between their company and their employees, for they most certainly did. Their employees were very glad to work for the two companies.
  Mr. Lindgren: If that statement is correct, how does the hon. Gentleman account for B.A.L.P.A. taking the Hunting company, together with a whole host of other charter companies, to the industrial court and getting an award against them on the rates of pay and the conditions of employment of pilots? So far as the employees are concerned in some instances there are general engineering agreements that cover them. I am not so certain about some of the agreements, but some of the companies are not honouring the agreements. The main complaint about charter companies is that they are not paying their pilots, the fellows who are in command of the aircraft, the rates of pay to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I imagine that BA.L.P.A. took the Hunting company to the industrial court because they wanted to improve their conditions of employment. At the present moment in a large nationalised industry—electricity—there is trouble. Would it be seriously suggested that the conditions of employment in electricity are bad simply because a body of people working in the industry want to improve their conditions? My charge is that for all the time for which the contracts run, and for which the new tender would have to be operated if the contract had been given, Hunting and Airwork were carrying out their undertakings and agreements made with the men working for them.
  If the hon. Gentleman were to carry the story a stage further I should be grateful. Is he suggesting that the contract was not given to Hunting or to Airwork because of some contravention of Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act 1946?
  Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, the contract was not given, because a lower price was given by B.O.A.C. I should not have mentioned Section 41 but for the fact that the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) brought it out in his speech,

  2609
  as he was entitled to do, that my Ministry had, during the period of the contract, called attention to Section 41. It was stated that they were not observing the proper conditions, and the firm had stated that this was untrue and unfair.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the price offered by Hunting had been competitive, despite the feeling in the back of the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that they did not wholly observe Section 41, then they would have received the contract? The hon. Gentleman has virtually said that. That being so, I think we are on the same basis for the purposes of this Debate. It is our charge that the tender made by those two private companies was better than that made by B.O.A.C. and that the circumstances under which the contract was given to B.O.A.C. were wholly improper. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has shown, it appears to be a story which ought to be cleared up if for nothing else than for the good name of two great Government Corporations. I am sorry that there is no representative here from the Minister of Food, who is seriously involved in this accusation.
  Mr. Lindgren: They were not expecting the Debate at this time.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, of course, and naturally the panic flight of the Minister of Food to East Africa would have prevented his own presence here; but we should have been helped if not encouraged if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food had been here. It is the Corporation under her ample wing whose conduct we are investigating today. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been taking a leaf out of the Minister of Food's own book in not telling the whole story to the House. If the whole story were told from that Front Bench, another Government Department and a Government corporation would have been put in a very embarrassing position. My hon. Friend had ample justification for raising this story and I think that the House will agree with him, without regard to party, that he did it in an eloquent and moderate manner. I. will not go over the story but there are one or two aspects of it which I might mention.
  What was the position? The Hunting Air Travel Company got a contract which
  2610
  ran from November, 1948, to 31st October, this year, to transport a large number of people—many people might think that an incredible number—consisting of 2,500 workers for the Corporation and the contractors to or from East Africa. It was a contract subject to three months' notice. Hunting Air Travel did very well indeed. In a letter telling them that they were not to have the contract renewed the secretary of the Overseas Food Corporation wrote:
  "The manner in which the contract has beep performed has given every satisfaction to the corporation."
  Surely that includes the conditions under which the contract has been operated? How could it have given every satisfaction to the Corporation or the Ministry of Food if the pilots or other workers had been treated harshly? The Hunting Air Travel Company, on 27th July, 1949—only last July—received a letter asking them to continue to carry out this contract until 31st January, 1950, in order to give the Overseas Food Corporation time to look at the matter again. They were to have an extension of the contract. Does that suggest that their conditions of employment were improper? The Overseas Food Corporation is rightly jealous of decent living conditions for Europeans and Africans alike, and they asked the company to continue to carry out the contract until 31st January next.
  What in fact happened? Before 31st January, many things may well happen. On 29th July, 1949, the Hunting Air Travel were told by the Overseas Food Corporation that the contract would not be renewed. At the same time Airwork Limited, another highly reputable firm, who had asked what was the last date to tender and had had no answer to that request, received a telephone message to the effect that the contract was not going to be given to any private firm. They had tendered on the actual day, 29th July, when Hunting's received a letter saying that their tender was not to be accepted. The Minister talks as if this were a smooth and normal change-over, but it happened suddenly within two days of Hunting Air Travel being asked to carry on until 31st January, 1950. Those circumstances alone are exceedingly suspicious, and we are entitled to press here or in another place, for a fuller explanation.

  2611
  The hon. Gentleman says that all this was done for the finest commercial reasons. The first charge we make is the story of how this has developed, and our second charge relates to his argument about commercial considerations. What have been the consequences? My hon. Friend has dealt very fully with the old successful contract of Hunting's, the one which it was said gave every satisfaction to the Corporation. Hunting's offer for the new contract was £59 18s. a seat at 100 per cent. load factor to Dar-es-Salaam, rising if the load factor diminished to 90 per cent. to a cost of £66. On the other hand, Airwork tendered in a different way. Their tender was never even considered. They got a telephone message on the very day they sent it out that it had all been settled between the two powerful Corporations before their tender was even considered. Their tender was £67 with no minimum number of passengers carried on each flight but a minimum number of passengers carried throughout the year.
  There we have the two tenders—£66 at a 90 per cent. load factor from Hunting's and £67 from Airwork. B.O.A.C. tendered—I shall come in a moment briefly to the circumstances of how they tendered—£72 10s. to Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. They got the contract. But their contract was more, leaving out altogether how they got it. It is a grossly improper story, but on the figures alone their contract was more. What has been the result to the hard-taxed people of Great Britain? B.O.A.C. are carrying these passengers at a loss.
  Mr. Lindgren: No.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If they are not, what comes of all the calculations we tried to make about how these companies operate? Through the courtesy of the chairman of B.E.A., some of my hon. Friends and I have today been down to Northolt and have been given a clear picture of how the load factor, capacity ton-miles and other calculations are arrived at, and we have inspected the methods by which this is done. We understand that it costs B.O.A.C. to fly anybody in this House—any ordinary person—to Nairobi the sum of £122 10s. We arrived at that figure by using the machinery which the Minister, and. so
  2612
  far as we know, the Corporation, uses. The average cost per capacity ton-miles, which is published, is 58.9d. Assuming 10 passengers to a ton, that gives a cost per capacity passenger-mile of 5.89d. Multiply this by the distance to Nairobi, and the figure is about £122 10s. But B.O.A.C. are taking these people for £72 10s. How can it possibly be argued that that is an economic proposition?
  Then came the most extraordinary statement of all by the hon. Gentleman. They are losing £50 for everyone they take. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the more they take the more they make, but one of the tragedies about civil aviation is that at times the more one flies the more one loses. It cannot be pretended that if B.O.A.C. is going to lose £50 per head on every passenger from O.F.C. transported in this way it will end up in the black and not in the red.
  There are two other considerations. A Colonial civil servant or a planter travelling back tomorrow from Dar-es-Salaam to London pays £146 to B.O.A.C. Sitting next to him may be an official of the Overseas Food Corporation whose company is paying £72 10s. The Colonial civil servant and the planter, as taxpayers, are subsidising the Overseas Food Corporation official beside them who is travelling for half their cost. What could be more likely to create bitterness against the Overseas Food Corporation in East Africa than this, and what is more certain than that if a large number of our fellow countrymen in East Africa could be allowed to fly home and back for £150, they would come home far more regularly than they do?
  Mr. Harrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in all contract passenger services, whether by air, water or rail, we find that there are reductions in the fare per head for each traveller?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, The misfortune here is that an aeroplane holds so few people. As my hon. Friend pointed out, if any more passengers are taken than the very small number—large in proportion to the undertaking but small in proportion to B.O.A.C.—for which they have contracted, they have to pay at the fantastic rate of £5,100 per plane. If the hon. Member will wait I shall come to that point, and no doubt be

  2613
  will then try to trip me up on that point if he can.
  The Parliamentary Secretary talked as if there were a large number of vacant seats on B.O.A.C. planes to East Africa and that this was a heaven-sent chance of filling them. That will not do. If there had been 2,500-odd vacant seats to and from Dar-es-Salaam in the last year it would have been no wonder if B.O.A.C. had been in the red, but we all know that it has not. The sequence has been this. The Corporation have, I believe, recently increased ten-fold the flights to East Africa, and have then got a lot of vacant seats. They have then gone to the charter company and said, "Look at our vacant seats," which they ought never to have created, and they have used that as an excuse to drive the charter companies out of this. A glance at Whitaker's Almanack will show that B.O.A.C. have been allowing one in every 200 of the white population of South Africa and one in every six of the population of East Africa to come home every year. They have saturated the market, and having done that, they use that as an excuse to take away the charter services.
  My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the loss to the taxpayers—the not always inarticulate taxpayers, and taxpayers who may soon have an opportunity of expressing a decided opinion—is twofold. There is the loss in the way I have already shown because B.O.A.C. are losing on every flight, and there is also the loss to the Overseas Food Corporation, a loss which at my calculation is £16,000 and may be more, because they were not allowed to take the offer of Hunting's.
  On this question of cost, my hon. Friend quite rightly said that by the contract between B.O.A.C. and the Overseas Food Corporation, B.O.A.C. had to provide 22 seats south with eight marginal and 15 seats north with six marginal per week. If more passengers want to be flown, then the Overseas Food Corporation may not charter a private plane to take them, but, under section 11 of the contract, the Corporation is bound to hire another plane from B.O.A.C. at a price of £5,100 for the return flight, or if there are only passengers for the south flight, then a charge of £5,100 for that alone. Even allowing for what the Government have done, is that fair to private operators? I
  2614
  deny it, surely a field might have been left to those private operators over and above the number for whom B.O.A.C. contracted with her sister Corporation.
  I now come to the last part of my argument. With my hon. Friend, I have tried to show what happened and I have tried to show the financial loss. How did this happen? My hon. Friend has told the story. The Parliamentary Secretary made no comment on it at all. If this had been settled by economic considerations we would not have raised it in the House because we agree that B.O.A.C. cannot be precluded from entering charter operations. But it was not settled on these economic considerations.
  It is our definite charge that on 27th July, 1949, B.O.A.C. had a meeting with the Overseas Food Corporation; that on that day Sir Miles Thomas and Sir Leslie Plummer agreed to B.O.A.C. taking over the contracts; that B.O.A.C. officials were told by Sir Miles to visit the Corporation and work out the details; that, as my hon. Friend said, not knowing that Hunting had quoted at that moment, they quoted £80; that then a message came from Sir Leslie Plummer saying that if B.O.A.C. quoted a figure within 10 per cent. of Hunting's they were to get it; that two officers of the Overseas Food Corporation were then told to work out a figure at an 85 per cent. load factor, and that they came back and said it was £72 10s.; that the representatives of B.O.A.C. were then told that this was a figure which, if quoted, would secure them the contract—they were told this on the quiet; that the next day, 28th July, B.O.A.C. not unnaturally sent in a quotation of £72 10s. and on the following day, 29th July, Hunting's and Air-work were told they were not to have the contract.
  That is the sorry story. My hon. Friend says quite rightly that it is not only the case that the Civil Aviation Act has been broken—for it has been broken in the most monstrous way—since the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Exchequer grant would not be used for the purpose of undercutting private operators and we believe that it has been used to break the Act. However, our charge tonight is much more than that. It is that a squalid deal has been arrived at between two Government Corporations which has

  2615
  driven out of this business a highly reputable firm whose members pay taxes to the State to enable us to carry out these risky experiments. Because it is a monstrous breach of the Act and a reckless misuse of public money, I think my hon. Friend was justified in raising this quite scandalous story.

  JAPAN (SUPREME COMMANDER'S POWERS)
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Paton: I wish to open a subject that has no connection with the one we have just been discussing but is of great importance to this House and to this country. I refer to the nature and scope of the powers being exercised by General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan. This is a subject which has aroused at different times during the last year or two great interest on all sides of the House, because it is well understood by hon. Members of all parties that the economic policies being pursued in Japan may have grievous consequences upon the trading position of this country and of the other Western countries unless they are carefully and closely watched.
  Before I proceed to my argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is one point I should clear up. Mr. Speaker was in some doubt as to whether this subject could properly be raised since he was not certain that there was any Ministerial responsibility for the powers and policies pursued by General MacArthur. I think I can convince you, Sir, as his Deputy, that we have an absolute and a direct responsibility. I believe that the doubt in the mind of Mr. Speaker arose from the fact that there are two bodies concerned with the direction of policy in Japan. One of them is a body called the Allied Council in Tokio, which is in its nature an advisory body and on which the British representation is not direct but through an Australian representative. The overriding authority with the fullest responsibility for the conduct of affairs in Japan is the Far East Commission sitting in Washington, consisting of direct representatives of all the 11 Allied Powers and including one direct representative of the British Government and, therefore, the responsible instrument of the Foreign Office. I hope, Sir, that in
  2616
  putting those facts before you, I have resolved any doubts there may be as to this subject being completely in Order.
  I have raised this matter at different times in the House both by question and, occasionally, in speeches. It assumed a new importance last month when, in answer to a series of Questions and supplementary questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave replies which filled with dismay most of us who understand the Far Eastern position. He seemed to make the case, which I have complained about in this House on numerous occasions, that the Foreign Office either believed it had no power to assert itself in Japan in relation to the policies being pursued by the Supreme Commander, or was unable to assert itself. If that, indeed, were the position, I should have the gravest disquiet as to the ultimate outcome for the trading affairs of this nation, because the importance of this subject arises from the possible consequences of the actions of the Supreme Commander upon our own trading concerns.
  On 14th November I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about the recent decision of General MacArthur, which was the combination of a long series of similar economic decisions, to abolish what are known as "floor" prices for Japanese exports, and it was from those Questions that this alarming situation was revealed. The term "floor prices" is applied to a system, which has obtained until recently, of applying minimum prices to Japanese exports for sale throughout the world, an attempt, of course, to protect the Western nations from the completely unfair competition with which we were faced before the war. The importance of this most recent decision of General MacArthur lies in its almost immediate consequences upon the trade of this country and the other Western trading nations.
  Without pursuing that at any length, I ought to put the House in possession of at least two quotations which will illustrate how grave may be the possibility of unfair competition with our industries. The first is from a letter which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" written by Mr. F. S. Winterbottom, who has an extensive knowledge and experience of

  2617
  the Lancashire textile industry. This is what he said:
  "Two months ago substantial stocks of grey cloth (U.S. cotton) from Japanese mills were being freely offered all over the world at prices averaging per pound of cloth approximately the calculation cost of only the yarn content to a British weaver…. Recalculation to allow for devaluation shows on an average Japanese cloth prices packed, made up, and delivered f.o.b. Kobe to be 10 per cent. above the United Kingdom manufacturer's cost of yarn only."
  No wonder there was an immediate reaction of great anxiety, not only in Lancashire but also in the United States textile markets, as a result of that decision to abolish floor prices.
  Now we know the explanation of prices of that kind, which no Western nation can ever hope to compete with no matter how we reorganise, no matter how much we may improve the efficiency of our industries. The explanation, of course, as most hon. Members probably know, is comparatively simple. Despite all that has been done in Japan since the surrender, despite the whole new apparatus of democracy, of welfare, of trade union and labour conditions and so on, the living costs of the Japanese are immensely below the living costs of his counterpart in Western industrial nations. No matter how he improves them from the low level of existing Japanese standards, they will remain in any event considerably below the standard of the Western peoples because of the wholly different pattern of Japanese traditional life.
  The "Economist" put the point very well on 15th October last when it calculated that the wages of Japanese workers in the textile industries averaged £3 per month. Whatever qualifications may be necessary to arrive at a figure of that kind—and there are a number—nevertheless it shows very vividly exactly what this kind of thing may mean to us unless we take the necessary measures to ensure that it does not happen. It is in that context, therefore, that this latest decision of General MacArthur to abolish "floor" prices has its great importance.
  I do not want tonight to discuss the merits or demerits of the decision to abolish "floor" prices. What I am concerned about is 'something which is even more important; that is, to try to put
  2618
  the House in possession of the facts as I see them with regard to the powers and authority being exercised by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General MacArthur. If we were to take at face value the answers to the Questions which are given in HANSARD of 14th November last, the House would be asked to accept the position that this country, which, as everybody knows but as often needs to be re-stated, poured out as much blood and treasure in the World War as did the United States, had no power whatever to affect fundamentally important policy decisions of the kind to which I have been referring.
  In reply to a Question which I had put down, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told the House on 14th November:
  "The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers has wide discretionary powers to deal with matters not specifically covered by Far Eastern policy decisions. The original decision to impose ' floor' prices was not a Far Eastern Commission decision, and it was within the discretion of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to abolish it."
  I challenge entirely that statement. I am perfectly well aware that I am guilty of tremendous temerity in challenging what was, in fact, an answer drafted in the Foreign Office to a Question of this kind; but I make the challenge deliberately because, so far as the facts available to an ordinary Member are concerned, I think I am on unchallengeable ground. I do not accept for one moment this considered reply of the Foreign Office that this decision on "floor" prices was in its nature, or in the specific decision itself, one on which the Far Eastern Commission did not have authority and on which the Far Eastern Commission had no power to do anything.
  In his reply to a supplementary question, the Under-Secretary took the matter even further. I do not, of course, want to pin him down too much on a spot reply to a supplementary question, but the importance of the supplementary reply comes from the fact that it continues the argument adduced in the prepared reply which I got in answer to my first Question. This is what the Under-Secretary said in the supplementary reply:
  "The Far Eastern Commission is not in a position to give directives to the Supreme Commander, nor has it given them, on this point. Until it did give such directives, he

  2619
  would be free to act on his own initiative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1686–7.]
  Well might the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) get up at that point and call the attention of the House to the very great importance of this reply. If it were true, it would mean that on all matters on which General MacArthur had not been specifically directed by the Far Eastern Commission, he would be in a position to exercise a completely arbitrary and unchallenged authority. I cannot accept that position for one moment, and I am sure that the Government or the Foreign Office cannot possibly try to sustain an impossible situation of that kind.
  I propose now—with great daring, I know—to try to assist the Foreign Office to come to a correct conclusion, as I see it, on this very important matter. The real reason I have chosen at this point to intervene is to get upon the record of the House the nature of our objections to the actions of the Supreme Commander and to try to establish the authority by which we challenge him.
  The first point to be considered is that the instrument by which the Far Eastern Commission was established was, of course, the Moscow Conference of December, 1945. I quote here from the communique issued from that Conference on behalf of the Allied Powers to show what was the nature of the powers of the Far Eastern Commission which it was setting up and to show further, not only the nature and scope of the powers of that Commission, but the limitations of the United States State Department, and to show, therefore, the limitations and restrictions applying to the actions and conduct of the Supreme Commander himself.
  The second Moscow Conference decisions with regard to the Far Eastern Commission, say in Article II with regard to functions:
  "1. To formulate the policies, principles and standards of conformity with which the fulfilment by Japan of its obligations under the terms of surrender may be accomplished."
  That, of course, shows at once that the Far Eastern Commission was the authoritative policy-making body for the conduct of affairs in Japan until a peace treaty had been drafted and agreed between the
  2620
  various Powers. Then follows paragraph 2:
  "To review, on the request of any member, any directive issued to the Supreme Commander for the Allied. Powers or any action taken by the Supreme Commander involving policy decisions within the jurisdiction of the Commission."
  Here, again, is demonstrated not only the authority of the Far Eastern Commission itself, but the right of any member nation in that Commission at any time to ask for a review of any policy adopted by the Supreme Commander.
  In paragraph 1 of Article III is a statement of the powers of the American State Department to give directions to the Supreme Commander. It says:
  "The United States Government shall prepare directives in accordance with policy decisions of the Commission and shall transmit them to the Supreme Commander through the appropriate United States agency."
  In that paragraph, again, it is clearly established that the United States Department, in its contact with the Supreme Commander, General MacArthur, acts as the agent of the Far Eastern Commission, and only in certain matters defined in paragraph 3 of the same Article has the United States any power to initiate direct action with the Supreme Commander. It says:
  "The United States Government may issue interim directives to the Supreme Commander pending action by the Commission whenever urgent matters arise not covered by policies already formulated by the Commission…"
  So that here, surely, we have in these paragraphs of the instrument which I have been quoting of the second Moscow Conference, the proof positive that the authoritative control over all policies in Japan operated through the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers reposes in the Far Eastern Commission composed of the representatives of all the Allied Powers, and nowhere else.
  Turning to economic policy matters, I wish to bring to the attention of the House another instrument which again clearly establishes the responsibility of the Far Eastern Commission for the nature of the policies being conducted by the Supreme Commander. A basic economic policy for Japan was defined by the Far Eastern Commission in a document which is dated 19th June, 1947, and entitled "Basic post-surrender Policy for Japan." In Part IV of that document,

  2621
  entitled "Economic," we have in Article VI a section dealing with international trade and financial relations. In paragraph 2 it is stated:
  "Control is to be maintained over all imports and exports of goods and foreign exchange and financial transactions. The Far Eastern Commission shall formulate the policies and principles governing exports from and imports to Japan. The Far Eastern Commission will formulate the policies to be followed in the exercise of these controls."
  I suggest to the House that it is completely impossible for the Foreign Office, in face of these instruments, to which all the Allied Powers are party, to continue to maintain that our powers in relation to General MacArthur are so limited and truncated that we cannot even challenge a policy like the "floor" prices policy which so gravely menaces our national trading interests.
  I am very sorry that it has not been possible to have in the House tonight the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was responsible for the the answers I have quoted of 14th November. I got in touch with him and he explained to me that because of the regrettable indisposition of the Foreign Secretary, an indisposition which I know all sides of the House will deplore, he was unable to come here tonight at short notice owing to the extra duties thrown upon him. We must at once accept that, but it is a little unfortunate that he has not been here to listen to the attack which I have been making on statements for which he had such a direct responsibility. I hope, however, that all I have said on this very important matter will be conveyed to him by my hon. Friend, who I understand is likely to say a word or two in reply, in order that this matter which I have taken the opportunity to raise tonight may again be reconsidered by the Foreign Office and decision taken that will lead to a drastic and effective change of policy.

  EXPORT TRADE (DOLLAR COUNTRIES)
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: It is of the nature of things that in an Adjournment Debate of this kind we travel the world somewhat. I wish to take the House away from Japan right across the Atlantic and to discuss, not at some length but in
  2622
  some detail, the whole problem of trade with the dollar countries, particularly with Canada. I may say to my Canadian friends that I do this with some delight as an old friend of Canada. I fought with the Canadian Corps of 1916 and 1917 and was at Vimy with them. Now I am pleased to know that as a result of the efforts which some of us are making here, Canada is willing to bat with us to promote and stimulate trade from this country to Canada with the aim of keeping our balance of payments in order.
  I do not think I shall be out of Order, and I am sure that the House will welcome it, if I make some reference to our general export effort with which my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade has been so intimately connected. I suggest that the tremendous achievement of our export trade since the termination of hostilities is not sufficiently appreciated either in this country or in the world as a whole.
  In 1948 we had in fact an overall balance of trade. I agree that we were out of balance in respect of the dollar countries, but having virtually abandoned our export trade during the war on account of conditions attaching to Lend-Lease and for the purpose of bringing the war to a satisfactory conclusion. I suggest that it is a matter for tremendous congratulation to everyone concerned in the export trade of the country that we achieved an overall balance in 1948, more especially when it is considered that, as a result of the year in which we stood alone, we sold up our overseas investments to an amount which corresponded to about the value of £150 million a year of free imports, in terms of pre-war monetary values. That meant in fact that in 1948 we had to export to the value of £300 million in order to balance that, on top of which we had in 1948 also to deal with at least £200 million of unrequited exports.
  Those two items add up to £500 million, which means that we had to achieve exports of £500 milion before we started to pay for anything which we paid for by goods before the outbreak of war. When it is considered that our total exports prior to 1949 were £470 million a year, I submit that it is a tremendous achievement on the part of everyone concerned that we achieved an overall balance in 1948. Now, on top

  2623
  of that, we have a situation arising out of devaluation which means that in order to compensate for the depreciated value of the £ we have to export about £48 million a year of goods more to the dollar countries before we start paying for any goods which we imported from those countries prior to devaluation.
  I am raising this point particularly tonight because I wish to emphasise the importance of trade with Canada. Without casting any severe criticism on the comments that have been made in the Press and elsewhere and in public speeches by responsible people about the possibility of closing the gap in trade with the United States, I suggest that it is most unlikely that we shall make any substantial inroad into the dollar gap by increasing trade with the United States. Our trade with the U.S. amounted to about £52 milion in 1948. If we double that we shall have done very well, but when we have doubled it about half of that increase will be accounted for in compensation for devaluation.
  I wish to make one or two general observations. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difficulty of which sufficient note is not taken. It is that the United States has a population of about 140 million and produces food for over 300 million, whereas we in this country have a population of 50 million and produce food for about 30 million. Somehow the whole price system has got out of gear, and it is to this point that I particularly wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend. In 1938–39 we used to pay 4s. a bushel for wheat imported from across the Atlantic. Today the price of wheat is about 2.25 dollars a bushel from U.S. We are paying in effect about 16s. a bushel and we are constantly being told to get our prices down. The cost of production depends very much on the cost of labour all through the productive machine, and if the price of the food which goes into the bellies of the people who do the work increases by four times, it is extremely unlikely that we shall get prices down. The fact is that we are at the present moment suffering from what might be called American inflation—and that is all there is to it.
  I wish the Board of Trade would do something—which the Chancellor
  2624
  of the Exchequer will not do—in the case of our best dollar producer, which is whisky. I do not believe that people realise that America pays only about 10 per cent. more for the whisky she imports from this country than she did before the war. She pays only twice as much for capital goods if she ever wishes to buy any—which she does not. J suggest for my hon. Friends' information that it would be a good thing if we doubled the price of whisky, even if the sales fell by half, because we should get just as many dollars and we should have more whisky for ourselves. That would please everybody, except my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, West, (Mr. J. Hudson), who does not take that same point of view. I do not believe our whisky sales in. America would fall; they are only 2 per cent. of the whole whisky consumption in America. I believe that is a bit of nonsense to argue that sales will fall off. I should like to find out what the facts are between the distillers of this country and the distributive trade in America which are keeping the price down. I believe they find it more profitable to make profits over there than over here.
  That is only one side of it. There is, of course, the gold issue, on which I am not going to speak tonight, because I made a speech about it a fortnight ago. I will emphasise to my hon. Friend, as I endeavoured to do to the Economic Secretary—and incidentally got him so cornered that he had no reply—that it is fantastic that we are tied to gold through Bretton Woods with the dollar at a fixed price. While we have to pay four times as much for wheat from America, America pays only 70 per cent. more for the gold which she takes from the British Commonwealth. If we are to have a fixed currency, for heaven's sake let it be a proper one and not one fixed on the fictitious price of gold.
  Now I come to the main point of my discussion tonight and that is our trade with Canada. I do not propose to castigate the Canadians that, per head of population, they buy about 11 times as much dollar goods as we do in this country per head of population. That is a mathematical fact which anybody can work out. Canada is next door to the United States, and it is only natural and economic that they should buy most of their manufactured goods in that direc-

  2625
  tion. On the other hand, the fact is that Canada depends for her prosperity largely on her farmers and the food which she produces and sells to us. We have this astonishing position, that whereas in 1948 Canada purchased 1,806 million dollars worth of goods from the United States, she sent only 1,500 million dollars worth of goods to the United States, and there was an out-of-balance of 306 million dollars which had to be made good, presumably out of the sterling-dollar pool.
  That is only a bit of it. If we look at it the other way, we are the best consumer of Canada's crops. The Canadians do not sell wheat to America. In 1948 Canada sold to us £217 million worth of goods and we sent to Canada in exchange only £76 million, and there was an out-of-balance of about £141 million which, at the ruling price of the dollar, was 560 million dollars. I have been at some pains to look into this matter of trade with Canada and really to find out what are the possibilities. I urge my hon. Friend, if he needs any urging—and he has had a bit from me from behind the scenes—not to be misled into believing that we shall close the dollar gap by any other means than by intensified trade with Canada.
  When I say that, I mean an intensified trade in two particular classes of goods, namely, coal and capital goods—iron and steel products. Anybody who takes the trouble to check the statistics which have been produced, both by our Government and the Canadian Government, can prove these figures for himself. We can ignore the rest of the trade. We may do a bit of tiddling about with a few motor cars and the rest of it, for just so long as the Americans allow us to do it and for no longer, because the Americans will make smaller cars just when it suits them and the export of motor cars will then go phut. The two trades in which we can make a substantial step forward towards closing the dollar gap are in shipping coal to Canada and and in iron and steel products.
  In 1948 Canada bought from the United States 6 million tons of coal at an average price of 32 dollars a ton. At the same time she purchased from us only something of the order of 50,000 tons as compared with her average pre-war amount of 1 million tons a year. I do not know anything about coalmining, but
  2626
  quite clearly here is an opportunity. We know that freights across the Atlantic are cheaper than freights from north to south of the American continent by rail, and there is no reason why, if we can get the coal, we should not ship at least 3 million tons of coal to Canada, which would close the gap by approximately 100 million dollars. But coalmining is not my trade, and I do not want to spend the time of the House in discussing how it might be done.
  My trade is the heavy engineering industry, or iron and steel production as we may call it. It will be found that in 1948 the totals purchased by Canada from the United States and ourselves were in the order of £196 million. I think the House will be astonished to learn that of that £196 million only £13 million came from this country. In other words, Canada purchased from the United States £183 million worth of iron and steel products—including raw materials, I grant that, but probably the manufactured capital goods were £100 million to £120 million—and she purchased only £13 million from us. Here is a tremendous market. How exactly it is to be entered by this country is another matter, and a point which I do not propose to discuss now.
  I wish to emphasise that Canada is what we might call, for want of a better term, "on the up and up." Canada has a vast development programme. I worked out today, when discussing the matter with somebody in the office of the Canadian High Commissioner, that in the next few years Canada proposes to spend not less than £7,600 million on capital expenditure. In 1949—the year just ending—they have already estimated to spend 800 million dollars. Having done that, in the first seven months of this year they have a budget surplus of 337 million dollars. They are in a marvellous position and if we are to balance our trade at all we must continue to help Canada to become more and more prosperous.
  This analysis shows what I have stated—that the two great possible inroads which will really make a substantial contribution to closing the dollar gap are the export of coal and the export of capital goods. It is very difficult to calculate just what that increase in the export of capital goods means in the way of increased production in this country. Anyone who studies the figures will find that

  2627
  it is very difficult, but I put it at a rough estimate—and my guess is probably - just as bad as anybody else's—that if we are to close this gap by selling, say, another £100 million of capital goods to Canada, then it means increasing our output of capital goods in this country by something of the order of 20 per cent.—something of that order in the machinery trade.
  It is a big job. Again, I will not divert my hon. Friend from the subject matter on which he is going to reply to discuss ways and means of how that should be done. What I particularly appeal to him to do is to impress upon those companies and concerns which are capable of making this contribution that now is the time to take action. It is hopeless to diddle-daddle about and, because we are full of orders which we have got as a result of a big demand, apparently arising out of the release of sterling balances, merely to say that this Canadian trade must stand by until such time as we have worked off our backlog. That just will not do.
  I should like to hear the Government, or if not the Government then some responsible body in the trade, declare to the manufacturers of heavy machinery and capital goods, that they should, regardless of what their obligations may be to their customers, set aside at least five, if not ten per cent. of their production in 1950 for shipment across the water to Canada. The Canadians are willing to play. The Canadian Government have taken steps which will ensure a fair measure of opportunity to British manufacturers and, of course, we all know that as a result of devaluation there is a tremendous price advantage to the Canadians which gives us a very big pull.
  There are one or two other matters which I hope the hon. Gentleman will emphasise. First, delivery must be prompt. Secondly, when we do get there we must bear in mind that both the Canadian distributor and the Canadian consumer have been utterly spoiled by American efficiency—much more so than anybody realises. We must ensure that proper service is provided from the word "go" and that full and adequate spare parts are available for all the machinery which is transported across the Atlantic. I know that arrangements have been made for facilities through the Export Credits
  2628
  Guarantees Department so that this can be financed and both machinery and stock can be ready for quick sale. Facilities have also been arranged for spare parts on the same footing.
  It is necessary, of course, to emphasise that the period that matters in Canada is immediately after the freeze breaks down, namely, about the end of March. It is urgent that steps should be taken now by manufacturers so that the goods are there when the break takes place. Before I close I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend that he will be doing this country a very good turn if he will bring the point home quite specifically to the manufacturers of heavy machinery that here is a really great opportunity. As I said earlier, the Canadians are willing to play. The price situation is favourable and the prospects in the country are tremendous. The duty of the manufacturers to the whole country is to see that this opportunity is not lost. It is their duty to see that a really serious contribution of not less, in my opinion, than £100 million a year—or 300 million in Canadian dollars—from the heavy industries alone is made towards the closing of the dollar gap.
  8.55 p.m.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): The subject of trade with the dollar countries—and particularly with Canada—cannot be ventilated too often. It is a matter of vital importance in order that this country of ours can again recover its position in world trade. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to reiterate a good deal of what has already been said in the Press and in the Debate, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, so I will endeavour to reply to the points which my hon. Friend made and hope that that will suffice.
  It is true that, in 1948, we had an overall balance of trade, but we did not have as much trade with the dollar countries as was necessary to enable us to get economic viability. It is comforting to know that, until October -of this year, our average export above the 1938 figure was 49 per cent., as compared with 34 per cent. for the similar period in 1948. My hon. Friend made reference, quite rightly I think, to the suggestion that, if the prices of food and raw materials are

  2629
  going to be kept high, it will be very difficult for us, as consumers of those goods, to be able to reflect in our production cheaper capital goods or cheaper manufacturing goods which other countries require. But, having said that, one has to take note of the fact that the laws of supply and demand inevitably operate. Because of the devastation caused by the war, there are shortages of foodstuffs and raw materials, and the demand is so great that it is inevitable that prices will remain high. But with better harvests, with the recovery in the Far East, in Europe and elsewhere from the ravages of war, it is to be hoped that the prices of both food and raw materials will show a drop from what is, I agree, a very high price.
  I am quite sure that my hon. Friend did not intend to say that, in the case of the Canadians, they were after the highest possible prices. It is only fair to say that, in the case of wheat, they have quoted us at below the world prices.
  Mr. Stokes: I was talking about United States wheat.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend also went on to show why we should get the maximum possible prices for some of the goods, in particular whisky. Knowing who are the main producers of that commodity, I should have thought that Scotsmen would have been keen to get the highest possible price and would not need encouraging to do so, but it is not a Government matter or one in which we can in any way interfere. I am quite sure that the trade as a whole does what it can to obtain that, while retaining the maximum goodwill. No doubt they will take note of the point which my hon. Friend has made, but, so far as the Government are concerned, there is nothing we can do. I have no doubt that the people concerned will look after their business in the best way they can with a view to getting the best possible prices for their goods.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to fall into the trap which he apparently laid for another of my colleagues. I am not half as competent to deal with the subject, and I shall therefore pass on to the other item which was much more the concern of my Department. That is the export of a number of goods, and particularly coal and capital
  2630
  goods, to Canada. In the case of Canada, we are exporting all the coal that we can, but they want a specialised type of coal. They want anthracite from South Wales. I think the figure is something like 70 per cent. of our availability of the type they need, which is exported to Canada. In the case of other coal, the extent to which we can supply them depends on the needs of home industry for the production of goods that Canada must have and our obligations to other countries with whom we have connections, but we shall be prepared to consider any opportunity that will enable us to earn more dollars.
  Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend tell us the tonnage of coal?
  Mr. Bottomley: I really could not give an answer offhand, but I shall see that my hon. Friend receives one.
  With regard to capital goods, that is another point which is emphasised time and again. We want to send as many as we can to Canada, and I like the suggestion that manufacturers should set themselves a target. I hesitate to suggest that it should be made public, because we have had some experience of setting a target for the cotton industry, and, in that case, we found that, when it was known that a particular quantity was coming, they said "We know that that amount is coming; we can more or less choose our prices." I think, as my hon. Friend agrees, that that is a thing we have to watch. But it is a useful suggestion, and I hope that ideas of this kind will be circulated among men actively engaged in the industry. I know from my hon. Friend's association: with our Department that his undertaking is really doing a good job. If all would follow that standard we might get that, percentage without any suggestion from a ministerial authority.
  I do not want to deal with the Export Credit Guarantees Department. I think industry is aware of all that has been done, but I would re-emphasise what has been said already, that it is necessary that there should be a prompt delivery of our goods. I ought to say that we have the fullest co-operation of our friends in Canada and in the United States. May I quote a word or two uttered by the Canadian Prime Minister? He said:
  "It is very strongly in our national interest to encourage imports of British goods into. Canada."

  2631
  I could also quote from what was said by the Finance Minister who uttered similar sentiments. May I conclude by saying that in the case of the United States, the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, has also indicated in similar words how necessary it is that the United States should import goods from this country. If trade is to flow and the world is to be free from these constant economic troubles it is necessary for those two countries to import our goods as it is necessary for us to import theirs in order to live.
  Mr. Stokes: I should like to ask my hon. Friend one question on a point with which he did not deal. Will he cause some instructions to be given that notices which go out to the Press are not so misleading? I think he will agree with me that on reading
  2632
  the Press for the past few days, one gets the impression that we made an inroad into the dollar gap in November. Actually, we earned one million dollars less in exports to the United States and Canada in November this year compared with the same period last year. In other words, the total was 44 million last year and 43 million this year. That sort of thing does us no good. Will my hon. Friend see that his Department puts over the propaganda in such a way that people realise that what we want is double that figure a month?
  Mr. Bottomley: I think that the figures we have given show that, if read carefully.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Nine o'Clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Injury Benefit
  Injury Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Hostels (Civilian Poles)
  Hostels (Civilian Poles)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Assistance, Portsmouth
  Assistance, Portsmouth
  Officials (Authorisation Document)
  Officials (Authorisation Document)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Great Harwood, Clitheroe and Padiham
  Great Harwood, Clitheroe and Padiham
  Displaced Person (Suicide)
  Displaced Person (Suicide)
  Holidays with Pay, Newport
  Holidays with Pay, Newport
SCOTLAND
  Housing (Reconditioning Grants)
  Housing (Reconditioning Grants)
  Fish Transport (Flat Rate)
  Fish Transport (Flat Rate)
  Local Authority Houses (Tenancies)
  Local Authority Houses (Tenancies)
BRITISH ARMY
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Western Germany (Sir W. Slim's Statements)
  Western Germany (Sir W. Slim's Statements)
  Honourable Artillery Company
  Honourable Artillery Company
  War Office Employee
  War Office Employee
  Recruits (Proficiency Badge)
  Recruits (Proficiency Badge)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Universities (Expansion Programme)
  Universities (Expansion Programme)
  University Grants
  University Grants
  Gold and Dollar Reserves
  Gold and Dollar Reserves
  Brazil (Sterling Payments)
  Brazil (Sterling Payments)
  CIVIL SERVICE (DISMISSED OFFICIALS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (DISMISSED OFFICIALS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Clothing
  Utility Clothing
  British Standards Institution (Committee)
  British Standards Institution (Committee)
  Argentina (Arrears)
  Argentina (Arrears)
  Winceyette Cloth
  Winceyette Cloth
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Clothing and Wool Textiles (Development Councils)
  Clothing and Wool Textiles (Development Councils)
  Utility Knitted Goods
  Utility Knitted Goods
  Allied Nationals (Unclaimed Property)
  Allied Nationals (Unclaimed Property)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Toy Prices
  Toy Prices
  Textiles (Foreign Import Restrictions)
  Textiles (Foreign Import Restrictions)
  Export Credits Guarantees
  Export Credits Guarantees
  American Plywood (Purchase and Sale)
  American Plywood (Purchase and Sale)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Watergate Beach
  Watergate Beach
  New Quarries and Mines
  New Quarries and Mines
  Hydro-Electric Scheme, North Wales
  Hydro-Electric Scheme, North Wales
  ELECTIONS (WEATHER)
  ELECTIONS (WEATHER)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Circular Saws
  Circular Saws
  Television Equipment
  Television Equipment
TRANSPORT
  A56 Road (Repairs)
  A56 Road (Repairs)
  Railway Accidents
  Railway Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Shipping Operations (Accounts)
  Shipping Operations (Accounts)
FUEL AND POWER
  Petrol (U.K. Production)
  Petrol (U.K. Production)
  Registration Books and Petrol Coupons (Losses)
  Registration Books and Petrol Coupons (Losses)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  DOGS (RABIES)
  DOGS (RABIES)
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  DETAINED BRITISH SOLDIER, SOVIET ZONE
  DETAINED BRITISH SOLDIER, SOVIET ZONE
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Aureomycin and Chloromycetin
  Aureomycin and Chloromycetin
  Dentists' Fees
  Dentists' Fees
  PRIVATE ENTERPRISE BUILDING, ABINGDON
  PRIVATE ENTERPRISE BUILDING, ABINGDON
  IMPORTED PHEASANTS
  IMPORTED PHEASANTS
  SCHOOLS (SANITATION)
  SCHOOLS (SANITATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Denham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PETROL IMPORTS
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:

1. How much is spent in dollars per annum on petrol of less than 80 octane value?

2. How much is spent in dollars per annum on films?

3. How much is spent in dollars per annum on tobacco?

4. What is the amount of royalties paid in dollars for petrol produced in the sterling area?

5. What is the amount paid by American interests in dollars for the purchase of petrol produced in the sterling area?

6. What is the estimated dollar content of the standard petrol ration for a car up to 9 h.p., and 13 h.p. respectively per annum?

7. How much petrol is now produced in refineries in this country per annum, and what is the extent of the increase in these amounts which can be expected for 1950 and 1951? and

8. What is the value for 1948 and 1949 respectively of equipment for the production of petrol made in this country and exported?]

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the length of my reply. As your Lordships will appreciate, I am replying to eight questions at the same time. In the twelve months ending June 30, 1949, the United Kingdom imported from dollar sources
1398
petrol of less than 80 octane to the value of 53,000,000 dollars at f.o.b. prices; but this does not take into account the dollar element in the costs of oil from what are called sterling sources. In the same period the United Kingdom paid 24,000,000 dollars on account of films, and 52,000,000 dollars on account of tobacco. Royalties are paid on crude oil, and not on petrol, and no dollar royalties are paid on crude oil obtained in the sterling area. Most of the so-called sterling oil is not, however, produced in the sterling area but in other countries, such as Venezuela and Persia. Royalty payments to such countries at present involve, directly or indirectly, a substantial dollar expenditure.
With regard to the fifth question, dollars paid for petrol produced in the sterling area or by British-controlled companies throughout the world are not recorded separately, but our estimate of the f.o.b. value of petrol sold by these companies to United States interests in 1948–49 is 13,000,000 dollars. It is not possible to calculate the dollar content of a particular petrol ration. Some is produced in this country; some of our imports are from dollar sources, and therefore cost us 100 per cent. dollars; and some of our imports are produced by British-controlled companies in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere where there are varying dollar elements of cost. Decision as to whether petrol shall be shipped to the United Kingdom from one producing region or another are determined mainly by commercial and geographic considerations. The size of the dollar element in petrol imported into this country from British controlled sources is, therefore, subject to considerable variation from time to time.
In answer to the last two points of the Question, the total production of petrol in the United Kingdom during the year 1948–49 was 1,128,000 tons. It is anticipated that production will have increased to 1,680,000 in 1950 and 2,220,000 tons in 1951. Equipment for the production of petrol is not separately distinguished in the trade accounts, and figures of exports are therefore not available. From figures released by the Oil Companies Materials Secretariat, it appears that the total value of export orders placed in the United Kingdom by the oil companies for materials and equipment for all purposes

1399
connected with the production, refining and distribution of all grades of oil has been as follows: for delivery in first half of 1948, £28,700,000; for delivery in second half of 1948, £32,400,000; for delivery in first half of 1949, £35,100,000.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I at once thank the noble Lord very much indeed for the answer to my Question? I apologise to your Lordships for the number of questions contained in the one. May I further ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the answer given in another place yesterday, from which it appears that no less than 39,775,000 gallons of motor spirit have been imported into this country from the Netherlands during this year and a further 28,793,000 gallons from France? Dividing those figures by 300, in order to reduce the gallons to tons, my elementary mathematics produce a figure of 228,560 tons. May I ask whether, in view of these figures, the Minister of Fuel and Power will be persuaded to look again at the possibility of maintaining the standard ration of petrol in this country, observing that the amount from the Netherlands and from France were not necessarily paid for in dollars?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, my attention had not been drawn to the facts given by the noble Earl, but I am certain that the Minister is fully aware of them and will have them in mind when deciding his future policy.

SLAUGHTER OF BIG GAME
2.40 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to Press reports of the wholesale slaughter of big game by untrained native hunters in Southern Rhodesia, and Tanganyika; whether it is true that this revolting practice has been authorised by the respective Governments with a view to the extinction of the tsetse fly; whether that pest cannot be controlled by more humane means, such as clearing the bush or some form
1400
of spraying; and whether in any case they will ensure that an immediate end is made to this indiscriminate killing—and maiming—by unskilled natives, and that the work of reducing numbers of wild animals, if considered essential, be entrusted to the white hunters and strictly confined to them or to men of similar skill and training.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, like my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I am answering a number of questions and I, like him, must therefore ask your indulgence for the length of my reply. The noble Lord will appreciate that, since Southern Rhodesia has self-government, it would be improper for me to offer any comments on the position in that Colony. I am glad to say that the implication in the noble Lord's Question, that the Government of Tanganyika have authorised the wholesale slaughter of big game is without foundation. The Tanganyika Game Ordinance of 1940 makes it illegal to hunt any but minor game of the antelope type, except under licence. Noble Lords will appreciate that in a territory so vast as Tanganyika, contravention of the law is bound to occur on a considerable scale; but the Tanganyika Government are preparing new legislation to tighten up control.
The tsetse fly is among the chief factors impeding the development of the nature resources of Tanganyika and the raising of the standard of living of its population, as its presence renders some two-thirds of the country uninhabitable by domestic livestock. Consequently every means of controlling the tsetse fly must be examined. The clearing of bush on a large scale has taken, and will continue to take place. Other anti-tsetse experiments being carried out in Tanganyika include the use of insecticides, both from the air and from the ground.
A controlled experiment is being conducted into the effects of keeping a comparatively small area of 560 square miles free of game other than small antelope and pig. This area contains the three most important species of tsetse flies in East Africa, and it is important, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, to ascertain the effects on them of eliminating the larger plains game. This work is being carried out, under the direction of

1401
scientific officers, by game scouts who are well trained and properly armed. The experiment is proceeding successfully.
I trust that the noble Lord will agree, in view of what I have said, that the strictures implied in his Question on the Government of Tanganyika are unjustified, and that his information was not as accurate as he accepted it to be.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and for some measure of reassurance which he has given me. I appreciate, of course, that these things are the responsibility of the Governments concerned. Before I brought up this Question I was a little more sure of my facts than appeared from the noble Earl's last remarks. All I am trying to ensure, since the wild game of Africa are one of the glories of the world's fauna, is that if it is necessary to destroy them in large numbers, they shall receive a merciful killing, and that the rules of the white hunter—that wounded and mutilated animals shall in all cases be followed and dispatched—shall be observed.
EARLE HOWE: Was any of this game flushed out of the ground-nuts area?

NATIONAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES (MEMBERSHIP) ORDER, 1949.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hall, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, November 29, last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Lord Kershaw.)
On Question, Motion, agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of
1402
section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, which was continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order, 1948, be further continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Ordet Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947. praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which was continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Order. 1948, and which would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, be continued in force until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill. The scheme for the improvement of Parliament Square has a rather long and involved history which your Lordships may not desire me fully to recount on this occasion. Therefore, I will deal with it briefly. In 1931 the Westminster House Real Property Company, who were acquiring a lease of Nos. 14, 15 and 16, Great George Street, proposed to erect a tall office building there. Their plans were approved, but in 1935 the Middlesex County Council promoted a Bill for com-

1403
pulsory purchase of the site. May I, at the outset, say that every credit is due to the Middlesex County Council for their far-sighted, public-spirited action? I do not say that because I have been a member of the Middlesex County Council. I was not a member of the County Council at that time, but I respect the integrity and ability of those who took far-sighted and public-spirited action to purchase that site compulsorily. Some time later that proposal was dropped in favour of an agreed purchase.
A demand then arose that the Government should contribute to the cost of preserving the site as an open space. Meanwhile, the Minister of Transport had prepared a radical alteration of the layout of Parliament Square to facilitate the flow of traffic. This was adduced at that time as an additional reason for acquiring the site. In the closing days of 1938, the Cabinet agreed to a Government contribution of £100,000, and there the matter rested throughout the war years. After the war, negotiations were reopened by the Middlesex County Council, and offers of further contributions were made by the Westminster City Council the London County Council, the Pilgrim Trust and the Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The land was finally purchased early in 1948. The plan to which I have already referred was adopted as a basis and has since been considered in detail. It has the approval of the Ministry of Transport and the Metropolitan Police. I should add here that the Police felt that, unless this scheme could be carried out before the Festival of Britain, it would be difficult to hold the Festival on the South Bank site.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the legal position regarding the Square is also somewhat involved. With land so close to the Palace of Westminster and possessing so long a history, that is not difficult to understand. The land has been acquired for specific purposes over a very long period and, although the whole of it is now Crown property, certain obscurities in title and restrictions on use render this Bill almost essential. The Bill is not designed to authorise the scheme as a whole but is intended to remove any doubts about title to owner-
1404
ship and powers to carry out the scheme. The responsibility for the scheme is divided. The London County Council will be responsible for road works and the Ministry of Works for laying out and maintaining the two new garden enclosures. These works be carried out almost entirely under existing powers. The points covered in the Bill are the narrowing by a few feet of certain carriage ways, for which neither the London County Council nor the Ministry of Works have powers, and the extinguishing of certain rights of way. Authority is also sought to move statues and re-erect them, and to remove the Buxton Memorial Fountain.
During its passage through another place, the Bill received approval but was subjected to some criticism in regard to details, the most important being from Members speaking on behalf of Westminster City Council, insisting that the absence of pavements round the central island would be dangerous to pedestrians. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works readily agreed to consider this point, and since then consultations have taken place and agreement has been reached. The amended scheme provides for a pavement on the south and east sides of the new central garden. I may add that a plan of the amended proposals has been placed in the Library.
There was also some discussion in another place on the suitability of various statues for the site at the north-east corner of the Square. One suggestion is that the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion should be moved from Palace Yard to the Square and its place in the Yard be taken by the statue of the Burghers of Calais, at present in Victoria Tower Gardens. This suggestion will be discussed with the Royal Fine Art Commission, who have, I should mention, approved the scheme as a whole. As noble Lords will be aware, after the Second Reading in another place had been carried without a Division, the Middlesex County Council petitioned against the Bill to the Select Committee, asking that traffic should be kept at a greater distance from their Guildhall.
The Bill as it now stands consists of a preamble in which the scheme as a whole is outlined. Clause 1 provides for the incorporation of a portion of the carriageway of Great George Street in the new

1405
central garden, and widening of the pavement outside St. Margaret's Church. Clause 2 provides for the extinguishing of rights of way over the existing central carriageway and over those pavements which are to be incorporated in the new gardens. Clause 3 provides for the removal and re-erection of statues in Parliament: Square and the removal of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. It also seeks to clear up certain obscurities in land title. The Clause 4 refers to the Schedules which provide protection for the statutory undertakers and the British Transport Commission. These Schedules have been agreed with the parties concerned. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the expenses of the scheme, the short title, the interpretation of the Bill and protection rights of the Lord Great Chamberlain and other officers of State in connection with the closing of footways for ceremonial occasions.
My Lords, that is all I have to say in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, except this, if I may be so hold as to make to noble Lords who are interested in this Bill a suggestion which may facilitate the orderly conduct of our business. As noble Lords probably know, it has been decided that the Committee and remaining stages of this Bill shall be taken after the Second Reading. As noble Lords will also know, two main Amendments have been put down, one dealing with the position of the Middlesex County Council and the other, in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, dealing with the Buxton Memorial Fountain. I am entirely at the mercy of noble Lords, but it seems to me that it might be better that discussion on these two Amendments should stand over to the Committee stage—assuming the Bill is not opposed—which will be taken immediately after the Second Reading. I merely make that suggestion, with which noble Lords may agree or otherwise. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Morrison.)
2.56 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I quite agree with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord. Two specific points are raised, one of them being an Amendment in my name and the other in the narni! of my noble and learned friend
1406
Lord Simon. Our attitude on these Benches is much the same as that of our friends in the House of Commons—namely, to give general approval to this Bill, but to draw attention to some specific objections to its detail. That leads me to make this protest. Noble Lords may not know that the scheme, almost as it appears in the Bill, was agreed between the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council and the Commissioner of Police, as far back as May of this year; and it comes to this House at such a time in the Session—indeed, it did not come to the other place very much earlier —that there is little One to consider it. Your Lordships were asked last week to pass an alteration to the Standing Orders in respect of this Bill, limiting the time for petition against it.
All this is done on the assumed basis —because it needs an assumption that I personally do not think I can accept—that the traffic for the Festival of Britain will be completely disorganised unless there is some alteration to Parliament Square. The two parts of the Festival of Britain are on the south bank of the Thames, and communication between the two of them—we heard a great deal about it on the Second. Reading of the Festival of Britain Bill—is hoped to be mainly by water transport up and down the river. That was one of the reasons why Battersea Park was selected for the amusement park site. In any case, there are roads south of the river which afford better communication to get from one part of the Exhibition to another than do roads on the north. It is rather farfetched to say that the traffic arrangements for the Festival will be completely upset if this Bill does not pass into law this Session. I think the Government ought to have introduced the measure much earlier. I do not wish to raise the particular point about the Middlesex County Council now, because I shall do that when my Amendment is called. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be much better to confine the debate on that subject to that Amendment, and I have no doubt my noble and learned friend will agree that the debate on the Buxton Memorial Fountain should be kept to his Amendment and should not delay the Second Reading.
There is one item of news that the noble Lord has given to the House this

1407
afternoon—namely, that the equestrian statue that is to be erected in the middle of Parliament Square is to be the one we know quite well, that of Richard Coeur de Lion. There was some rumour that a new statue was going to be made; that at some future date perhaps we should see the Lord President of the Council sitting on a horse in the middle of Parliament Square—as my noble friend behind me suggests, "riding his high horse." I think we ought to protest against this somewhat "high horse" procedure of the Government bringing in this Bill so late in the Session, when agreement had been reached some time in May, and asking us to rush it through the House of Lords in a single afternoon. That course will be quite agreeable to us, I may add, if the noble Lord opposite and the Government will accept both my Amendment and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon.
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will not be in too much of a hurry to decide the question of the equestrian statue. There are very few sites in London which are now suitable for the erection of statues of heroes of the future, or even of the present day, and there seems to be no need to move the statue of Richard Cœur de Lion. It is perfectly appropriate in its present position, and it would be extraordinarily out of place in a garden devoted to the commemoration of nineteenth-century Prime Ministers. If His Majesty's Government must have an equestrian statue in the Square, I suggest that they move there the only equestrian statue of a Prime Minister that exists in London—I refer, of course, to the statue of the Duke of Wellington. I would further beg His Majesty's Government in their gardening operations to preserve the dignity of Parliament Square. I understand that it is proposed to have some flower beds there. If that is so, let the gardening be kept as formal gardening. People do not go to Parliament Square in order to see quaintness or to delight in floral beauty; they go to be impressed by the majesty of the centre of the British Empire. Therefore, I hope the Office of Works will not give rein to a passion for rusticity which I have observed in some of their recent works, and I hope
1408
that in the Parliament Square of the future they will give us nothing which will be quite so offensive as that miserable little "pocketful of posies" which has stood there during the lifetime of the present Government.
3.3 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, as a Londoner I am much interested in this Bill, but I could not understand how it was that my noble friend Lord Llewellin, an ex-Minister of Transport, failed to see any connection between the traffic problem in Parliament Square and the Festival of Britain. Surely, the difficulties of London traffic in recent years have shown us how a traffic block starting at an isolated point anywhere can travel back in all directions and bring a great area of London almost to a standstill. The trouble is that this Exhibition is to be held in the centre of an over-trafficked city. As I said during the debate on the Second Reading of the Festival of Britain Act, I am extremely anxious about the traffic problem, which I do not think will be solved by the proposals which have been put forward up to the present time. The normal traffic problems, accentuated as they are by the difficulties arising from the emptying of such great termini as Waterloo, we already know. What it will be like when the Festival of Britain gets well under way, I cannot think.
I am certain that Parliament Square, amongst other places, will play its part in any scheme proposed. I would submit, however, with regard to this Square that what is suggested is merely tinkering with the problem. Your Lordships will be only too painfully familiar with the difficulties of getting access to the House of Commons in present traffic conditions. You come along Great George Street from St. James's Park, for example, and you are held up by a tremendous stream of traffic coming from Victoria Street and Millbank. In present conditions, an absolute standstill occurs at certain times of the day. If the increase in traffic which is anticipated as a consequence of the Festival of Britain actually takes place, I cannot see how traffic will get through London at all.
Many of your Lordships will be aware of the experience of other countries, such as France, and will know what has been done in Paris. In that city there are

1409
points of great traffic congestion, and they have dealt with the trouble by constructing tunnels. What especially complicates the problem in Parliament Square is traffic coming out of Whitehall and desiring to go straight across the Square to Milibank. In Paris, I submit, a problem of that kind would have been tackled by the construction of a tunnel starting somewhere in the middle of Whitehall, where the centre stream of traffic is going more or less southward. That tunnel would have to dive under the traffic coming from Victoria Street and George Street and would come up, presumably, in the vicinity of the entrance to the House of Lords. If the Government intend to deal properly with the traffic problem of Parliament Square, I do not think they can afford to ignore such a proposition. It is a method which has been found of great advantage in whatever country it has been tried. In Paris, as your Lordships; know, at the bottom of the Avenue Foch and at the bottom of the Avenue leading to the Bois, traffic tunnels now exist, and some of your Lordships will recollect the traffic jams that used to occur before those tunnels were built. They were exactly the same sort of jams as we shall experience. The present plan, so far as I am able to understand it, will not actually solve the traffic problem; that will still remain, and I believe that the resultant chaos which will he caused will certainly extend back to the south bank of the river. There is very great danger of traffic in this area being brought to an absolute stop unless something really drastic is done on the lines which I have ventured to suggest.
3.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I find myself drawn into this debate, against my previous intention, because of the surprise I received when Lord Morrison stated that it is proposed to place in the centre of Parliament Square, the heart of the British Commonwealth, so incongruous a statue as that of Richard Coeur de Lion. Nothing could be more out of tune—
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount to point out that I did not say "it was proposed." I simply said that the suggestion had been made. It is not the policy of the Ministry, for no such decision has yet been made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: if the noble Lord had added that the suggestion had been immediately stamped upon, I should not have felt it necessary to rise.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister one question. I have examined the plan which has been in our Library, and I should like to know whether Lord Morrison was correct in saying that the proposal was that this equestrian statue should be placed in the middle of the Square. I understood from the plan—I think a little inquiry will show that I am right—that it was suggested that it should be put in the north-east corner of the Square, looking down Whitehall. I share the views of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I think we had better know where this hypothetical equestrian statue may appear.
3.9 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I must have expressed myself badly. I find on reference to my notes that I did not say it was proposed to place the statue in the middle of the Square. I said that one suggestion was that it should be moved from Palace Yard to the Square. What I was referring to—and perhaps it was my own fault for not making myself clear—was the fact that in the considerable discussion in another place a number of suggestions were made, that being one of them. I was endeavouring to convey to the House that that, along with any other suggestions, would be considered in due course by the Ministry and the Royal Fine Art Commission. May I thank noble Lords for having so readily accepted the suggestion I made? There is only one further point that I need make now, also for the purpose of getting the record correct. I hope that. I did not lead any noble Lord to think that, if this scheme wee not carried out, the Exhibition traffic would result in absolute confusion. What I said was that the Metropolitan Police were of the opinion that considerable traffic difficulties would arise if this scheme were not carried out before the Exhibition. With regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is always interesting on these matters, I would point out that there could not be a traffic tunnel under Parliament Square because the Metropolitan Railway already runs below the Square.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before we leave this matter, I have always understood—and I believe it to be true—that the reason the statue of Richard Cœur de Lion was placed where it is was that when the King was dining in Westminster Hall he received a message from the King of France which irritated him very much. He rose and said, "I will never turn my back upon France. I am going straight there." He had the window below which the statue now stands pulled down, and when he set out for France he rode through it. That is the reason why the statue is in that place.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, if the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion is moved from its present position to Parliament Square there is no possible place for it but in the centre of the Square, because the statue is out of proportion to any of the other statues. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that when the proposal was made the Government ought to have stamped on it. It would be most unsuitable that this one great statue should appear in the centre of Parliament Square, out of proportion to all the statues which are already there.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; reference to a Committee under Standing Order 121 negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair] Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
3.13 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on use of Canning enclosure
". No part of the Canning enclosure within a distance of 65 feet from the existing main entrance to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriageway."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, may I say a few words in regard to the part played in this scheme by the Middlesex County Council and also to recall what the noble Lord, Lord
1412
Morrison, said on Second Reading. Both the noble Lord and I happened to be members for Middlesex at the time when the County Council acted, and acted with great promptitude, in this matter.
In 1934 the London County Council had given planning permission for a large office building to be erected at the corner of the Canning enclosure, after an existing building had been pulled down, near the building of the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and opposite the Treasury buildings. Hearing of this scheme and being themselves the occupier of the Middlesex Guildhall and near neighbours, and also partly to preserve their own amenity (though I think more largely because they took a wide outlook on what should be the future of Parliament Square), the Middlesex County Council introduced a Private Bill to acquire the site. They obtained powers under that Bill, but found they did not have to effect a compulsory purchase, because they made an agreement with the owners of the site to buy them out. The Council trusted that they would persuade His Majesty's Government, the London County Council and other people interested in Parliament Square to come in with them in the general improvement of the Square. At the start they did not receive much encouragement. though oddly enough they received a grant £50,000 from the Pilgrim Trust! say "oddly enough" because though they are a proper and generous body, they are the most remotely concerned with Parliament Square. In the end a settlement was arrived at whereby the London County Council contributed £50,000; the Westminster City Council £45,000, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, £10,000. There was the £50,000 from the Pilgrim Trust; the Government contributed £145,000; and the Middlesex County Council contributed £100,000, also paying the interest on the loans on the remaining part of that money over the years in which they had to lay out the purchase price before the other contributions were made.
In 1936, having acquired this site, the Middlesex County Council got into touch with the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry at that time agreed a new plan which would meet all transport require-

1413
meats. It was then of help to the Middlesex County Council to get contributions from others who would be interested in Parliament Square, so they held on until May of this year when, at very short notice, the Council were invited to send a representative to a conference held at the Ministry of Works to meet representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Commissioner of Police, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. When they got there the Council found that there was a more or less cut-and-dried scheme, although they were the only people who had made this scheme possible. I should like every noble Lord to get this into his mind: the present proposed alteration of Parliament Square would not have been possible if the Middlesex County Council had not bought the site and prevented the erection of that large office building. If the building had been erected, it would have been necessary to buy it, at a cost which would probably have run into £1,000,000, in order to make possible the present scheme of alteration. Therefore I should have thought that the Middlesex County Council should have been consulted at the very outset. They Were not consulted and, indeed, they have not been listened to at all.
When the Bill eventually came before Parliament the Middlesex County Council submitted a Petition against it. But the promoters of the Bill, rather cunningly, withdrew one clause which, in the opinion of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, was the only clause which gave a proper status to the Middlesex County Council. They were thereby deprived of their status and so precluded from putting their case in detail to the Select Committee. The Middlesex County Council are anxious for this scheme to go through, in broad outline. But the present scheme takes the new carriageway much nearer to the Middlesex Guildhall than the original scheme of 1936, and, in their view, much nearer than is necessary for the improvement of traffic conditions in Parliament Square. After May, they had talks with the Ministry of Transport, the Commissioner of Police, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. They were all prepared to accept the Middlesex County Council's idea of this road, although it is fair to say that the Com-
1414
missioner of Police preferred the scheme which is at present proposed by the Ministry of Works.
The Amendment which I am moving to-day has been put down in a great hurry, and if the wording is not right I would ask your Lordships to excuse any failings. I heard about this only on Friday. I wrote at once to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and I do not think he could have received my letter until Monday morning. What my Amendment suggests is that this road should be taken back another eight or ten feet from where it is now designed, to the line where it was acceptable to the Ministry of Transport in 1936, and that no pant of the main carriageway to the Middlesex Guildhall shall be used as a public carriage- way—I am not referring, of course, to what I believe is a private road which goes past the front of the Guildhall, giving access into the Guildhall itself. The Amendment refers only to the road carrying the main stream of traffic round that part of the Square.
I feel that this Amendment may be favourably received on several grounds. First, the Middlesex County Council made this scheme possible by putting up the money originally. If they had not done that, back in 1934 or 1935, the road could not be constructed as is now proposed. For that they are entitled to our gratitude, not only in words but also in deeds. Secondly, under the original scheme of 1936, this road was approved by the Ministry of Transport. There are no great objections to it at the moment, except that it is said that it would mean a new layout of the plat A third reason why I feel the Government should accept the Amendment, or give an undertaking for the road to be constructed further back (if the noble Lord could give that undertaking, I would withdraw my Amendment), is that it was in the power of the Middlesex County Council only yesterday to put down a Petition in your Lordships' House, along with that which they put down in the other place. Had they done that, then the ordinary Standing Orders of this House would have meant that there would obviously have to be some days for tie setting up of a Select Committee, and to enable the parties to prepare for it; and in that event this Bill could not possibly have got

1415
through your Lordships' House this Session.
In view of the reasonable attitude of the Middlesex County Council, starting in 1935 and extending right down to yesterday, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared either to accept my Amendment or to give an undertaking that this main carriageway will not come nearer than sixty-five feet to the main entrance of the Middlesex Guildhall. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: I was pleased to hear the last point mentioned by the noble Lord—namely, that the Middlesex County Council had deliberately refrained from putting in a Petition yesterday, which, as the noble Lord said, would have resulted in the Bill being lost so far as this Session is concerned. It is only a further example of what I referred to as the far-sightedness and public spiritedness of the Middlesex County Council, that while they are (if I may use the word) disgruntled at the present scheme, because of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, mentioned, they are still in favour of the scheme as a whole, and are prepared to give it their support. The noble Lord recalled the early history of the matter which, to my knowledge, as a Middlesex person who has done all his public work in the County of Middlesex, is absolutely correct. In the circumstances, it seemed strange to me—and probably it seemed strange to the noble Lord, as an exMiddlesex M.P.—that when a matter like this came before the other place no Middlesex Member of Parliament took part in the debate, with the exception, I think, of the Member for Twickenham, who did not refer to the position of Middlesex at all. If I may put it another way, no Middlesex Member of Parliament referred to the position of the Middlesex County Council in this connection. There might have been good reason for that, in that a Petition was about to be launched. Perhaps they held back in those circumstances. As the noble Lord has said, the Petition was dismissed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: For lack of status.
LORD MORRISON: Yes. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, that the Middlesex County Council have not been fully consulted throughout, all I can do (I have been away from my office for some time) is to express my deep regret that such a thing should have happened, although I have made inquiries and no one knows why any discontent should exist on that score. Certainly, no discourtesy was intended, and those who know the Ministry of Works will know perfectly well that, especially so far as important public bodies like the Middlesex County Council are concerned, the Ministry would not be guilty of discourtesy.
This is not a question of gratitude for what the Middlesex County Council have done—we have already expressed that. I propose to tell the Committee what will be the consequences of accepting this Amendment, and to let your Lordships decide.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It will be a free vote?
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment would make it quite impossible to carry out the scheme as at present planned. It is in effect a negation of the scheme as a whole, and cannot be accepted. The effect of building the road at a distance of sixty-five feet would be to destroy most, if not all, of the trees which it is proposed to retain. It would reduce the value from the point of view of traffic improvement, and would require new negotiations with the consultant architect, the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Metropolitan Police, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. From the point of view of time alone, it would be quite impossible to carry out these negotiations and still complete the improvements scheme before the Festival of Britain.
The effect of accepting the noble Lord's amendment would he to set back the western boundary of the new road by about nine feet. This would involve narrowing the road, or setting the whole road in its present alignment back nine feet, or re-aligning the road at an angle with the southern end nine feet farther east, the northern end remaining where it is. The first alternative—that is to say, the narrowing of the road—would

1417
be wholly unacceptable to the police and the Ministry of Transport on traffic grounds. The second alternative would bring the line of statues within seven feet of the kerb, and to set the statues farther to the east would bring them right under the trees. This would probably involve the complete redesigning of the Square. Added to this, the large tree at the southern end, which balances the corresponding tree on the opposite side of the road, and another large tree at the northern end, would have to be removed. The other trees would be brought within thirteen feet to seventeen feet of the road. The cutting of the tree roots which would result would seriously damage them and might even make them dangerous. The third course would also result in the loss of the tree at the southern end, and cause damage to the roots of the other trees. In addition, the Square would cease to be a rectangle and the western boundary would cease to be parallel to the paved path which is sited axially on the northern door of the Abbey, and as under the second alternative it would involve the redesigning of the Square.
The noble Lord has not mentioned the point that the Middlesex County Council have been pressing throughout—it was, I thought, one of their most important points—namely, the noise which would be caused. In that regard, I am advised that the acoustic experts who have examined this problem state the difference in the volume of sound between the entrance to the Guildhall and the present road on the one hand and the road in the new position on the other, would be only just perceptible. For those reasons, I must repeat that, as advised at present, I am not prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and the responsibility for doing so must rest with the House as a whole, with the consequence which will arise therefrom.
3.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose, we all want to reach a satisfactory solution to this problem, which is obviously a very complicated one. The noble Lord who has just spoken gave us a full account of the difficulties of almost any solution, and certainly of the solution which we have suggested. So far as I was concerned, he gave us almost too full an account, and I found myself utterly bewildered as to what from the
1418
point of view of the Ministry of Works, would be the effect of the proposal which we put forward.
LORD MORRISON: The complete redesigning of the whole scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He gave us an extremely interesting account of what the effect would be, but it was impossible, without a detailed map in one's hand, to visualise the tenor of his argument. The point which surprises me, and which I think must have struck other noble Lords listening to this debate, is this: Why is it vital to have this alteration made for the Festival of Britain? London has gone on a very long time without it, and the Festival of Britain—although we all hope it will he an immense success—is not going to make that astonishing difference which makes this alteration essential at the present moment. If I may say so, I feel that the Government are to blame in having brought this question up at such a very late moment. My noble friend Lord Llewellin told the House this aftrnoon—and it was not denied by the Minister—that the decision between the police, the Ministry and everybody else was taken as far back as May, at, a time when we were occupied, in my view far too much, with the nationalisation of steel Surely one day might have been allotted by the Government to enable Parliament to understand what was their intention in regard to this particular scheme.
I would suggest that if there are these difficulties, it would be far better to delay this Bill—I know we have given it a Second Reading—in order that the Government may consider further whether it is vital to have this carried out before the Festival of Britain. My inclination would be to advise my noble friend Lord Llewellin to press his Amendment, not with a view necessarily to having it in the Bill as a permanency, but to create a situation in which the Government will have to think again. The London County Council, who after all have a considerable say in this matter, are deeply worried about the matter, and if this Amendment were passed and we could have further negotiations to see whether some solution acceptable to all parties could be found something would be gained. If it turns cut that the problem is too intractable to be dealt with immediately, then I would suggest that it

1419
would be better to postpone it and try to arrive at a proper solution.
This is a redesigning of what is really the hub of the Empire. It is an important matter, and I do not like, as I am sure other noble Lords do not like, its being hustled through. Therefore, I suggest that your Lordships should pass this Amendment, and then, if the Government think that it is quite impracticable, they should discuss with the other bodies concerned some alternative solution which would be satisfactory to everybody. If they cannot find that solution, then I suggest it is better to postpone the matter until we can give ourselves time to look at something which, after all, we hope will last for a great many years.
LORD MORRISON: May I add a word, to tell the noble Marquess that only yesterday a discussion of some length took place between representatives of the Middlesex County Council and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, and no agreement was reached at that discussion. I have no authority at all to accept this Amendment, for the reasons which I have given to the House. They may be complicated, but I would sum them up in two sentences: first, it means the complete redesigning of the whole scheme, and, secondly—the reason I gave on Second Reading —the police feel that unless the scheme can be carried out before the Festival of Britain it will be very difficult to hold the Festival on the South Bank site. For those reasons, I have no power to accept the Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, mentioned that it would make a complete redesigning of the scheme necessary, but I am given to understand—and I believe my information is correct—that the Middlesex County Council's engineering adviser is definitely of the opinion that if my noble friend's Amendment were passed it would have little effect on the plans already prepared, and would cause very little delay. It seems to me that there is a definite conflict of practical views on this, which gives all the more justification for the matter to be reconsidered later.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord mentioned a conference which took place yesterday. Can he tell the
1420
House whether at that conference the Middlesex County Council representatives conceded the position which the noble Lord has outlined to-day: the absolute impossibility of their point of view being met without a re-designing of the whole scheme. Did the Middlesex County Council concede that yesterday or did they not?
LORD MORRISON: Nobody conceded anything.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But did the Middlesex County Council agree that the whole scheme needed redesigning in the way the noble Lord has outlined to-day?
LORD MORRISON: No; there was no agreement on the part of the Middlesex County Council. But I am not representing the Middlesex County Council, and it is for them to say what their attitude is on that point. I believe that if their idea were adopted some trees would have to be sacrificed; but I do not want to commit myself.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not feel at all satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said. In regard to these trees I am told that the position is that, until the digging of the foundations of the new road is begun, nobody knows what roots of what trees are likely to be found, and what trees may ultimately have to come down. It is a pity that the Committee cannot see this plan which I have in my hand. The present scheme, which means going back only sixty-six feet, makes the road go only about four feet nearer to these trees. That is far enough away from the trees, and it would not be necessary to take down a single extra tree by altering the plan in that regard. It is news to me that the statues were to be placed on that particular side of the trees. That would mean that these statues, representing former Prime Ministers, would be turning their backs on the House in which their subjects were great orators. I should have thought that that was wrong, and that the statues ought to be on the other side of the Square, facing the Houses of Parliament. I think the noble Lord's explanation is highly unsatisfactory, and I ask the House to support me in this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Reading, M.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Templewood, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Llewellin, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

Luke, L.

Howe, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Lindsay, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Milverton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Monson, L.

Munster, E.

Blackford, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Perth, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Newall, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Broughshane, L.

OHagan, L.

Carrington, L.

Polwarth, L.

Allenby, V.

Charnwood, L.

Rochdale, L. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Cherwell, L.

Rockley, L.

Hailsham, V.

De L'IsIe and Dudley, L.

Schuster, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Marchwood, V.

Derwent, L.

Waleran, L.

Mersey, V,

Gifford, L,

Webb-Johnson, L.

Monsell, V.

Hampton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Simon, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Calverley, L.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Mottistone, L.

Darwen, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Hall, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Holden, L.

Rea, L.

Amwell, L.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shepherd, L.

Badeley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as respects the new gardens
3. —(1) The Minister may remove the memorial fountain near the north-east corner of the Canning enclosure and any of the statues in the existing garden in the centre of Parliament Square or in the Canning enclosure, and shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him either in the new central garden or in the new west garden.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) after "by him" to insert" of the memorial fountain if removed."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I rise to move an Amendment which is down on the Marshalled List in the names, not only of myself but also of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, so that I may fairly claim that this Amendment has prominent support from all sections of the House. Clause 3 of the Bill is a clause which makes a remarkable distinction. It begins
1422
by authorising the Minister of Works, in carrying out this important scheme in Parliament Square, to
"remove the memorial Fountain … and any of the statues."
It then goes on to say that the Minister
"shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him either in the new central garden or in the new west garden."
Your Lordships, therefore, see that in fact, whether or not it was intended, the clause draws a distinction. Whereas we are invited to say by Statute that the Minister must put back into Parliament Square the statues the position of which may be shifted, as regards this Memorial Fountain, about which I shall say more in a moment, we are invited to give the Minister the right to remove it, and Parliament is not expected to include in the Bill any provision or direction of any kind as to what he is to do with it. I do not suspect the Minister of intending to sell it as rubbish. No doubt, what is contemplated is an executive act by which this memorial shall be put somewhere else. Where, according to this Bill, is not for Parliament to decide. We

1423
are to leave the whole thing to the discretion of the Minister.
I think that is a significant and, as it seems to me, a very unfortunate way in which to word the clause. Therefore, the noble Lords who have been moving in this matter—and I believe I am largely supported by other noble Lords—desire to insert in Clause 3 words which will require the Minister to deal with this Memorial Fountain as the statues are dealt with—that is to say, if its position be moved. In point of fact I think it will be agreed that it ought to be moved because, if the roadways are to be improved it is necessary to round off the corner where it now stands, and therefore it would have to he shifted. But the important questions for your Lordships—and I deem them very important—are these: First, is it right that we should leave in the hands of the Minister and his officials the destiny of this Memorial Fountain? Secondly, is it not rather the duty of Parliament itself to take the decision as to whether or not it should be replaced in Parliament Square? I must be forgiven if I spend a few minutes in reminding your Lordships what this Memorial Fountain represents. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill earlier this afternoon described it as the Buxton Memorial Fountain. It does sometimes go by that name, but in fact it is the memorial put up in Parliament Square to the efforts and the ultimate success of a body of British statesmen who at length succeeded in carrying an Act of Parliament which abolished slavery under the British flag. As such, it appears to me to be exactly the sort of memorial which ought to be found in Parliament Square—the place which, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said just now, is really for this purpose the hub of the Empire.
I hope I shall be forgiven if I remind your Lordships for a few minutes of the outline of a piece of history. I would fain believe that the language of Clause 3 may be due to an oversight on the part of those who drafted it. If it is not, I am afraid I must say that I feel that those who are responsible for its present form have completely overlooked the pre-eminent importance of the Parliamentary efforts which this monu
1424
ment records. Wilberforce and his colleague Clarkson carried on a campaign against the slave trade, in the face of the bitterest opposition, for a whole generation. At length, the abolition of the slave trade was carried in the year 1807. From that time forward, slave trading was a crime. But that Act did not in the least release the hundreds of thousands of slaves claimed to be the property of their masters in various British Colonies, and from 1807 until 1833 the campaign was carried on to establish what I see in a letter printed in The Times to-day is called "the first and greatest of human rights"—namely, that in the British Empire, under the British Crown, slavery, the ownership of one man as a piece of property by another, cannot and shall not exist.
Nobody who has the slightest regard to our historical traditions and to the great achievements of our British Parliament ought ever to forget the magnificence and the effect of that sustained effort It was most bitterly opposed, Parliament after Parliament, Session after Session, year after year. Wilberforce, who had been the principal author of the Act of 1807 which abolished the slave trade, fell ill. He actually retired because of ill-health in 1825, and when he did so he handed over the second part of his work—the greater part, the final part, the part which meant the abolition of slavery in British Colonies—to his colleague, Sir Thomas Powell Buxton. But he was not the only person who carried on the campaign. I have recently re-read a few of Buxton's speeches, and they are a magnificent example of sustained argument. He was assisted by people like Lord Brougham and Mr. Clarkson. He was backed by Denman, an ancestor of one of my noble friends here: by Lushington, who was in his day a very famous Member of Parliament and a great international lawyer and by Mackintosh, who did so much to reform our institutions in many directions.
At length, after the carriage of the first Reform Bill, in the year 1833, the Statute abolishing slavery was carried through both Houses of Parliament. At midnight on July 31, 1834, 800,000 slaves, who until that moment were lawfully owned by other people in the territories over which the Sovereign presided, were freed. Beyond all question, that is one

1425
of the greatest Parliamentary events in the whole of our history. This monument in Parliament Square records it. And now we are asked to accept Clause 3 which, as it stands, says: "If you want to remove the statue of Sir Robert Peel or of Mr. Disraeli you must put it back in the Square. But if it is a question of this monument to the statesmen who for so long struggled to abolish slavery in the British Commonwealth, well, we will leave it to the Minister of Works to remove it and to decide what is to be done with it."
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I venture to put this side of the argument in two quotations. The historian Lecky, who was a fairly cool judge of cur historic affairs, has written of the story of Parliament's abolition of slavery, that it may be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous acts recorded in the history of nations. In that connection I would remind the Committee that Parliament, in order to carry through the release of these slaves, voted a sum of no less than £20,000,000, found by the British taxpayer, in order to compensate existing slave-owners. It was the most wonderful, the most disinterested and virtuous act that you can imagine, for £20,000,000 at that time was one-third of the whole of the national revenue.
I venture to offer one other quotation, and then I will not further embroider the theme, which I must confess moves me as I think it ought to move everybody who is sincerely interested in the development of Human Rights. The other quotation is from a Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, the father of the present Earl. Lord Rosebery wrote:
"This country, when it stands before history, will stand when all else has passed away, not by her fleets and her armies and her corn coerce, but by the heroic, self-denying exertions which she has made to put down this iniquitous slave traffic."
Are we in this House really going to say: "Let us leave it to the Minister of Works to remove this monument. We are not concerned in our Act of Parliament with what he does with it"? That appears to me, especially in contrast with the reference to the statues, to be a monstrous proposal. Therefore, I submit to the Committee (and shall be very willing to accept their decision) that we ought to require that this monument
1426
should be, perhaps not in the same place, but somewhere, restored to Parliament Square.
I am authorised by my noble friend, Lord Hailey, who is detained elsewhere, but may get here before this debate finishes, with his quite exceptional knowledge of Africa and of the tribes of Africa—and the Committee know that in the last few years he has devoted himself to a study of the subject—to say that he cannot exaggerate the importance which he attaches to securing that here, in the huh of the Empire, we do retain a monument so significant in the history of the influence of our Parliament on the natives of Africa. I venture to think that it would be very odd if we, by Statute, should require the statue of Abraham Lincoln to be preserved in Parliament Square, but should be indifferent to Parliament giving directions as to this monument to a far greater, because a far earlier, achievement, thirty years before, in the face of every sort of resistance and obstacle. Wilberforce was the abolitionist of the slave trade. Buxton and his friends were the emancipators who succeeded in 1833.
I know that what I am saying now is felt by many members of the House, one of whom has written to me regretting very much that he cannot be here to-day —namely, Viscount Cecil. For many years he took a very important part at Geneva in endeavouring to get rid of the remains of slavery in this world. He writes to me to say how warmly he supports this proposal, to which indeed he has put his name, and how he wishes he could come and speak in the debate this afternoon. I must say that I think those who are prepared to accept this clause as it stands, with this comparatively casual treatment of this monument as compared with the treatment of these statues, show a very poor sense of the importance of our Parliamentary history. When, as many of your Lordships do from time to time, I take visitors from abroad or from the Commonwealth round our precincts, I do not want to feel that they can go there and admire the statue of Mr. Abraham Lincoln, the emancipator of the slaves in the United States, and that we have said to the Minister of Works, "As for this other monument of British emancipators, you may deal with it as you and your advisers think fit."
I cannot see the slightest indication that His Majesty's Government have ever considered this matter from what I may call the historic point of view. I have no doubt they have had opinions that are critical of the æsthetic merits of this fountain. On that matter opinions will differ. In fact, I notice that in the House of Commons opinions did differ. One, I think well-instructed, member of the Labour Party expressed an emphatic view that it was a good example of a particular style of architecture, and another Member used equally positive language the other way. But I would just make this observation, without claiming to be an authority on such matters, though I take a great interest in them. This particular fountain —as is stated in the letter from Lord Macmillan which appears in The Times this morning—is an example of what is sometimes called "Victorian Gothic." If you want another one, go to Oxford and look at the Museum there which was built under the inspiration of Ruskin, and which some people criticise very severely whilst others admire it. If I may say so respectfully, do not let us be too sure that we who live now, even the Fine Art Commission, necessarily express the last word in taste in matters of art.
I would remind your Lordships that the early English style and the Decorated style which are so splendidly exemplified in our old cathedrals were called "Gothic" styles, and when that epithet was introduced, it implied that it was barbaric. Where is the man of culture who will not say to-day that he greatly admires the Gothic style—the style of Salisbury Cathedral—and that he thinks it attractive. "Gothic" was the adjective first attached to that kind or style of architecture, in derision. It meant that it was a barbaric style, just as the adjective gothique in French to-day means barbarous and uncultivated—and just as we used to call the Germans "Huns." So, judgments change, and while I am not claiming more for this memorial than many people think it deserves, I submit that in the circumstances the historical aspects of this question are far more important that any judgment anyone may form now on æsthetic grounds.
What is proposed to be done? My noble friend, Lord Morrison, who is always so reasonable in these matters, tells me there is only the intention to put
1428
this memorial up somewhere else. I submit to the Committee that that is really not good enough. The question is: Is not this a matter for Parliament to decide? We are going to decide about the putting up of the statues in Parliament Square. Are we justified in saying that even the most accomplished of Ministers —I shall say nothing reflecting upon Mr. Key's historical appreciations—and his officials should be left to decide what should be done? I do not think that they should. Therefore my proposal is that we should insert this Amendment in the Bill. It seems to me to be utterly wrong that Parliament should leave the destiny of this memorial in the hands of a departmental Minister. It ought to be decided by Parliament. So far as I can see, there is no reason why it should not be dealt with in the same way as the statues of London. If there is any other suggestion, I shall be glad to hear it. I urge upon the Committee that it is wrong for us to leave the destiny of this particular memorial to the discretion, subject to the advice which is received by him, of the Minister of Works, whoever he may be.
I am the last to wish to quarrel about this business, and I add only this. I feel warmly about this question, as I know many others do. If it is thought that there is some other place close by which could equally well be used, I submit to the Committee that the decision ought not to be the decision of the Minister. It ought to be the decision of Parliament, and I should be quite willing to see added to my Amendment words like these:
"provided that if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the next three months the memorial fountain should be re-erected on such site."
My point is that this question should be decided by Parliament. I think that we tend in these days rather too much to get into the habit of thinking: "Oh, leave it to the Minister. The Executive will decide this. Parliament need not do more than give him discretion." I am not prepared to do that in this case. I hope that there will be other noble Lords who will join me and support this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after ("by him") insert ("and the memorial fountain if removed").—(Viscount Simon.)
4.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think we owe a debt to the noble and learned Viscount who has just moved this Amendment, for I have some suspicion that had it not been for his vigilance the Bill might have gone through in the form in which it has been presented to the Committee. That, I think, in the opinion of many of your Lordships would have been extremely regrettable. From the aesthetic point of view, we may not all be struck with admiration for this particular memorial, but that is not the beginning and end of the matter. It may well be that if in place of a derided piece of Victoria masonry there were put there the latest creation of a sculptor of to-day that, in its turn, might not receive universal admiration, either from your Lordships or from the populace at large. When the Government propose—as it is proposed in this Bill—to replace in position statues which are to be moved, I wonder whether they are being put back on the instructions of the Royal Fine Art Commission because of their intrinsic beauty or because of their historical interest. But if it he, as I fear, having gazed upon them, largely for their historical interest, I can see little distinction in principle between them and the fountain which it is now proposed to cast into oblivion.
We have no indication where, if anywhere, it is proposed to re-erect this fountain. I submit, following the noble and learned Viscount, that the place for a memorial which commemorates so notable a chapter in the history of this country ought not to be left to the sole discretion of a Minister and ought not to be far removed from the precincts of Parliament. At this moment we, like people in many other countries of the world, and indeed those in the United Nations, are much concerned with a Charter of Human Rights. There can be no greater starting point for the assertion of the principle of human rights than the record of the work which was achieved by Buxton and his colleagues, whose memory is marked by this fountain which it is proposed to remove to some unknown destination. I hope the Minister will tell your Lordships that he is prepared to accept the learned and noble Viscount's Amendment; and if he is not prepared to take that course I hope the Committee will consider very carefully what action they propose to take upon his refusal.
4.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I wish strongly to support the opinions which have been expressed with such force and such feeling by the noble and learned Viscount. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken that we owe a great debt to the noble and learned Viscount for having perceived this matter which, but for his vigilance, might easily have gone unnoticed. I can only think that it is by an oversight that specific provision for this memorial has not been included in Clause 3 of the Bill. Really, if it were not an oversight it would indicate an ignorance of history and an insensitivity to history which I should be sorry to ascribe to anyone. We have many statues in London, many of them of mediocre men, and in one instance, of a rather vicious man, and I think we should take care before we erect any more statues. According to my reading of history, Richard Cœur de Lion was a thoroughly bad King. It. was said of him that he never lost a battle and never won a campaign, and I think he was absent from this country for all but a few weeks of his reign. I heard far more about Richard Cur de Lion while in Cyprus than I have ever heard about him in this country. This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was very negation of humanity. It is associated with the name of a great man, the name of Fowell Buxton, and with the names of the Gurneys, the Hoares, the Barclays—names which have always been honourably associated with philanthrophy and with the ideals of re form and humanity. It seems to me an extraordinary instance of our apathy to the part we have played in these questions that this Bill should provide specifically for the re-siting of the statue of Lincoln and forget the man whose act preceded the action of Lincoln.
Something has been said about the artistic merits or demerits of this memorial. I trust that this fountain will not he merely removed to a site in Parliament Square. I hope something may be done to set it off and give it more importance than it has to-day. Perhaps a screen could be placed behind it; perhaps an architect could be consulted about how to set it off. When we reflect on the tortures which the slaves suffered from thirst during their passage from

1431
Africa and the torments of thirst they suffered on the plantations in their slavery, I think we would agree that there could be no more appropriate memorial to the act of Fowell Buxton than the erection of a fountain of running water. I trust that this memorial will find its appropriate place in Parliament Square in memory of a great deed of statesmanship and of a great man.
4.23 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I rise to my feet not because there is anything special to be said on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, though I might say that we are fully alive to the immensity of the moral achievement which is commemorated by this fountain. Nor have I anything to add to what has been said so eloquently by the three noble Lords who have spoken. I venture to speak because, with one other in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Templewood, I have a family concern in this question. I cannot keep silent here, because I am a great-grandson of Elizabeth Fry and therefore mixed up with that clan of Buxtons and Barclays and Hoares and Gurneys to which kind reference has already been made. Families and relatives have a natural dislike to having their tombstones and memorials moved about hither and thither. I have had no opportunity to consult large numbers of the clan who live in East Anglia, and other parts of the country, and indeed, all over the world, but I feel sure they will agree with me that nothing could be less desirable or more untimely and unsuitable than to move this monument. I am sure I am speaking for all of them when I say that we should intensely dislike the idea of this interesting and highly significant memorial being carted off to some obscure spot in this Metropolis. I speak for these family reasons only, and I do not attempt to add anything. I hope that the Amendment will be passed.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the Amendment. I should also like to point out that if the Committee pass it, it will have a marked effect on Clause 3 because it will mean that the whole layout of the statuary in Parliament Square
1432
as now planned will have to be replanned. I personally should welcome that—for one reason. It occurred to me during the Second Reading, and it strikes me even more forcibly now, having listened to the speeches just made, that we have to decide first, what is to be the nature of the equestrian statue, which will be the most important statue in the square. We must first decide whether it should be, for instance, Richard Coeur de Lion, or as my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh suggested, the Duke of Wellington or anybody else. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for explaining to the House why Richard Cœur de Lion was placed here, and obviously he should stay. I was always struck by the fact that the only statues in the immediate curtilage of the Houses of Parliament were those of Oliver Cromwell, who spent the whole of his time trying to abolish Parliament, and of Richard Coeur de Lion, who spent the whole of his time trying to avoid summoning Parliament. Suppose that it is to be the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion. Obviously, for an equestrian statue of that size the layout of the other statues, garden and paths would have to be different, from that required for, say, the statue of the Duke of Wellington. Or suppose that a new statue were proposed —for instance, that of the same size as George III in Cockspur Street—that again, would throw out the whole balance of the Square. Until the Royal Fine Art Commission have decided what is suitable, it will be extremely difficult to plan where the fountain and other statues should be. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to encourage the Fine Art Commission to think this matter out quickly and carefully.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Like the noble Lord, Lord Winster, I have served as a proconsul in a distant province of the British Empire. I can imagine nothing that would more profoundly shock the people of all classes and all political Parties in the Dominion of New Zealand than if Clause 3 of this Bill were allowed to stand as it is. There is no country in the whole world where the people glory in the freedom of the human race to such an extent as they do in New Zealand. They have put their own native people in a position of equality with the

1433
white man to a greater degree and in a more emphatic sense than any other people in the world. I am certain that if, after this discussion, it were to go out that the memorial to Fowell Buxton, one of the great English champions of freedom, was to he removed from the place where alone it ought to be, in the precincts of this Parliament, it would shock the whole of that nation which is so loyal to the British Constitution and for whom we have such a profound regard.
4.30 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: At the risk of losing some of the friends I have in this House, I want to begin by saying that never in the short period during which I have been a member of your Lordships' House have I heard a case so over-stated as this has been to-day. Noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently have a good case, but there is no reason for over-stating it. What is the picture now in the minds of noble Lords who have not partaken in this debate? It is a picture of the abolition of slavery: of a great debate having taken place in the Houses of Parliament, with a resolution moved that a public statue be erected in Parliament Square to the people who were concerned in that abolition, and now many years afterwards a dastardly Government coming along and suggesting the upsetting of that position.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MORRISON: But what are the facts? I have spent a good deal of time on this question. I have even taken the trouble to go through correspondence that passed during the first ten years. I am going to read to your Lordships the letter which initiated this matter. It did not come from any persons we are now hailing as people to whom the country has been paying tribute even since for abolishing slavery. It came from a body called The Metropolitan Free Drinking Fountains Association. A gentleman called Mr. Wakefield, who was probably the Secretary of that Association, wrote a letter on November 16, 1859. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pictured a great event, one of the greatest in the history of the world, taking place on July 3, 1834. It was some time after that, in 1859, that this gentleman wrote a letter
1434
to the Commissioner of Works of that time. The letter says:
"Sir,
I beg to request on behalf of this Association "—
that is, The Metropolitan Free Drinking Fountains Association—
"the liberty of erecting a costly and handsome fountain in Palace Yard, or some other site contiguous thereto, over which I am informed you have jurisdiction.
The Association will feel much obliged if you will see the propriety of permitting the erection of a drinking fountain in this instance. There are few localities more in need of a fountain and few sites more adapted to one."
Here is an extract which shows that even in those days a class war existed:
"Though it may be difficult for the rich to fully appreciate the extremity of the want which these fountains supply, and the great boon they confer on the poor, yet the Association beg to refer to any of the fountains which they have erected in the leading thoroughfares as evidence of the extent to which these fountains are used by the poor. Awaiting the favour of an early reply, I have the honour to be, Sir.
Your obedient servant,
E. T. Wakefield."
That is the first announcement. As your Lordships will now see, instead of there being a great debate and decision by Parliament to erect a memorial—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Nobody said there was.
LORD MORRISON: I am saying that that is the impression created.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, not at all.
LORD MORRISON: As I say, I have been through the correspondence that passed during the first ten years (all the correspondence is still in existence), and in that correspondence there is no mention made of the abolition of the slave trade. I mention that to bring us back to a sense of proportiom of what we are discussing.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Was the monument erected before it was known that it was to be a memorial to the abolitionists?
LORD MORRISON: I have been unable to find out from the correspondence whether it was known what inscription would appear on the fountain beforehand. Nor have I been able to ascertain

1435
whether there was any great ceremonial opening of the fountain. I do know there was some ceremony several years later. The inscription that is on the fountain now is not the same as was originally there, although it may be that the inscription did not last and was repeated in a new form later on.
I want to deal with this question, first from the æSthetic, secondly from the utilitarian (it is a drinking fountain, and it was obviously intended for that purpose), and thirdly from the historical point of view. With regard to the historical point of view, the noble and learned Viscount referred to speeches made in the House of Commons on this point. One of them I thought was a particularly well-informed speech by a Labour Member in favour of the retention of the fountain. The other speech was delivered by a Conservative Member who was formerly a mayor of Westminster and who certainly ought to know something about it. The Labour Member described the fountain as:
"a structure which is of the quintessence of Victorian design, which fits admirably into its surroundings and is extremely representative of its time."
The Conservative Member for Twickenham, the ex-mayor of Westminster, expressed entire satisfaction that the Bill makes
"no provision at all for the re-erection of the Buxton Memorial Fountain which has no artistic merit whatever. I am very glad it is to he removed from the square. I hope it will be destroyed unless somebody comes forward with an offer to take it away and re-erect it somewhere else."
I merely mention those two speeches to show that opinion is not unanimous from the esthetic point of view. I would say that the fountain—perhaps the majority of your Lordships would agree with this —can he described as a piece of distinctive architecture.
This new plan for the Square is not merely the result of traffic experts' designs for the roadway, with the intervening space filled with grass and pavements; it is, in fact, a piece of design executed by an eminent architect, which has been approved by the Fine Art Commission and the architectural profession generally. To place anywhere in this design a monument so architecturally distinctive as the Buxton Fountain would be to ruin completely the whole of the
1436
present scheme. A special setting would have to be created for it, and, in fact, a new scheme designed. The urgency of the reconstruction of the Square has already been stressed, and no revised scheme could be produced in time for the Festival of Britain in 1951. It is going to be rather difficult now, in any case, to complete the scheme by that time.
I have already read the letter which initiated this scheme. In defiance of the strong language used in another place by an ex-mayor of Westminster, I can state, quite definitely, that it is not, and never has been, the policy of the Ministry of Works to destroy this monument, or even to remove it from what has been described by a gentleman in The Times this morning as
"the symbolic heart of the Empire."
That is a specific and clear statement. Whatever its origin, if noble Lords insist that the fountain is of great historical importance—as they have done, and which I have suggested is doubtful—I am prepared to meet them and put forward two alternative proposals for the new siting of the fountain, both of which appear to me to meet the original request of the Association. The first is that the fountain might be re-erected in Victoria Tower Gardens. A new power house is now being built at the end of your Lordships' House, and when the Victoria Tower Gardens are cleared up there will be room for the fountain there. I suggest that, from the point of view of utility alone, apart from anything else, this would he a very suitable place. Those of your Lordships who have been about this neighbourhood for a good time will have seen the thousands of children who come down to see the Houses of Parliament, and will have been alarmed at the danger to these children in crossing one of the busiest thoroughfares in London, in order to get to a fountain. If the fountain were re-erected in Victoria Tower Gardens, they would be able to keep on the same side of the road.
LORD WINSTER: Has the London County Council been consulted about the proposal to re-erect the monument in Victoria Tower Gardens? Surely it would be within the discretion of the London County Council whether that might be done or not.
LORD MORRISON: I was putting forward two suggestions, and then I was going to say that both of them would be subject to the consent of the parties concerned, and also of the Fine Art Commission. The second suggestion I was going to make is that it should be re-erected on the north-east corner of St. Margaret's Churchyard, which may be said to be actually in Parliament Square. As I have already said, the first of these sites appears to have the practical advantage that it can be reached by school children visiting the Houses of Parliament without crossing the road, and is in surroundings where children might eat the lunches which they usually bring with them.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to be clear whether the noble Lord has the authority to make this particular proposal, which I understand is for a site immediately in front of St. Margaret's Church I am not clear whether he is simply throwing it out as a possibility, or whether he has the authority of those concerned.
LORD MORRISON: If I had not the authority, I would not put it forward. I am authorised by the Minister himself to put forward these two alternative suggestions, subject to both being submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission. They have been consulted at every stage, and I think the majority of your Lordships' House would desire that they should be consulted. Subject, therefore, to consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Ministry are prepared to agree that this statue should be re-erected either in the Victoria Tower Gardens or in the north-east corner of St. Margaret's Churchyard, which would be more suitable than the Square. It has to be removed from where it is because the new road is going right through where it stands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As my noble friend Lord Simon suggested, as these alternatives are now thrown at us, Parliament should approve the site. I think the fountain is revoltingly ugly, and I should not like to see it in front of a church. If we have to preserve historic continuity, surely we should have some chance of looking at the site. That would be met if there were an Amendment that Parliament was to approve where the fountain was to go.
LORD MORRISON: My difficulty is that the noble Viscount is so quick, and I am so slow. I was about to say that the reason why I put forward these two suggestions—and here perhaps I misled the noble Lord, Lord Winster—was that both these sites are Crown properties. But in the event of the Royal Fine Art Commission agreeing with the Ministry, the Minister would then come before Parliament and seek the consent of Parliament to either of these positions A difficulty emerges here, Which I think the noble Viscount will see at once. Obviously before this can be done there will be a General Election and a new Government. Therefore, it is difficult for the Minister or for me, in my present capacity, to commit a Minister of Works of a new Government I do not know how to get over that difficulty, but I am prepared to give the definite assurance that so far as the Ministry of Works are concerned—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would not a possible way out be to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment? It would then be in the Bill and, in the event of any Government wishing to set up this monument in any area outside Parliament Square, it would be dependent upon a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It would bind any Minister of any Government after a General Election. That seems to me to be the simplest way out; and since the Minister of Works and the Government, if they are returned at the General Election, are prepared in any case to consult Parliament I cannot see that they can have any objection to it.
LORD MORRISON: It is difficult to deal with this kind of matter on the spur of the moment, and the only suggestion I can make—perhaps the noble Viscount may be willing to think it over—is that we postpone the Report stage of the Bill in order that the best way may be found of doing what the noble Viscount is putting forward. Perhaps he will inform me whether it is his intention to insist that the fountain should be erected in that particular Square or whether it should be erected in what is described as "the symbolic heart of the Empire."
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would like to make it plain to the noble Lord and to the Committee what I suggest. The

1439
Amendment which I, together with other noble Lords, put down provides that this memorial shall be re-erected in Parliament Square. I appreciate that the suggestion may be made that it should be put in some adjoining area. Therefore, I am quite prepared to move my Amendment with the additional words I read out in my, speech:
"Provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the next three months the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
I am saying that only because I understand that the Festival of Britain requires it to be done rapidly. If it is four months, I am willing to agree. I cannot agree that it is necessary within the next forty-eight hours.
LORD MORRISON: I think we could accept the Amendment if the noble and learned Viscount would delete "within the next three months."
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interpose again, but I think I am invited to do so. My idea was that the position in which this memorial was to be put should be decided by Parliament, and not by a departmental Minister. That is my respectful submission. If it be the case that there is a better place than what is known as Parliament Square in which to place the fountain, I am not saying that that is not possible. But I respectfully submit to the Minister and to the Committee that we ought to say that if it is not to be put in Parliament Square then it ought to be put in a place which is in accordance with a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The only reason I inserted the words "within the next three months" was because I understood this was regarded as pressing, and I did not want to hold up anything. But in any event I cannot believe that the re-erection of this memorial is going to take place in the next three months.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would read his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am proposing that we should amend line 31 by adding these words:
"Provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament within the
1440
next three months the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
The effect of that would be that if the Minister of Works moves the present position of the memorial—which I know will probably have to be done for traffic reasons—Parliament itself would provide in this section that it should be re-erected either in the new Central Garden or the new West Garden. It seems to me that the position at present is that, as far as the statues are concerned, Parliament decides, and that as far as the fountain is concerned the Minister of Works is to decide.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could we have the words of the Amendment read, set out as the noble Viscount is moving it?
VISCOUNT SIMON: If the suggestion which I respectfully make commended itself to the House the wording would be this:
"The Minister may remove the Memorial Fountain near the north-east corner of the Canning enclosure and any of the statues in the existing garden in the centre of Parliament Square or in the Canning enclosure, and shall re-erect such of the said statues as are removed by him, and the Memorial Fountain if removed, either in the new central garden or in the new west garden: provided that if another site for the Memorial Fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament"—
I said "within the next three months"—
"the Memorial Fountain shall be re-erected on such site."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could not the noble and learned Viscount leave out the words "in the next three months"? I am willing to accept the Amendment if the noble and learned Viscount will omit the words "within the next three months" but he repeated them just now.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am quite willing to do that, and I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I now beg to move to insert the proviso which we have been discussing.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("garden") insert ("provided that if another site for the memorial fountain is agreed on by Resolution of each House of Parliament the memorial fountain shall be re-erected on such site").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Morrison.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say one or two words—first, to thank Lord Morrison and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very reasonable way in which they have met my suggestions and, secondly, to add a little to the history of the fountain. I am surprised that the noble Lord had not been better briefed. If he will look in the Dictionary of National Biography he will find that Mr. Charles Buxton, who was a well-known M.P., was a son of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton the emancipator.
The Dictionary of National Biography says:
"He was the architect of his own beautiful seat … He gained, a prize of £100 in the competitive designs for the Government Offices in 1856.… He was an admirer of Gothic architecture for modern buildings and he designed the fountain near Westminster Abbey built by himself in 1863 as a memorial to his father's anti-slavery labours."
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
4.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Authorisation of works, etc.
4.—(1) The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity in the gardens, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act, if
1442
executed or carried on by the County Council, the Company or any person authorised in that behalf by either of them, shall be deemed to be authorised by this Act notwithstanding that it would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "shall" to insert:
"during the continuance of the Festival of Britain and no longer."
The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment can be stated quite shortly. Clause 4 takes away from anybody, in particular those who live in the vicinity of Battersea Park, the power to bring an action or injunction on the grounds of nuisance in respect of anything carried on during the Festival of Britain. We discussed this matter on Second Reading, and it was quite rightly thought that so that the Company or the County Council should not be embarrassed by having actions or injunctions brought against them, the remedy was to see that no injunction was brought by anybody during the period of the Festival of Britain. But under Clause 3, the County Council are given the right to carry on these works and to maintain these buildings after the time when the Festival of Britain has ceased.
The point that I am dealing with was raised in another place. I think it would be right if I were to quote, as I am entitled to with a Minister present in this House, the words that the Minister of Transport, Mr. Barnes, used when this matter was raised there. He said:
"I understand that Clause 4 does not carry through this power with regard to a permanent nuisance. It is confined to the period of the Festival. I recognise, however, that it is a valid point, although no one has contemplated that it should continue after the period of the Festival. I recognise also that within the powers of Clause 3 the London County Council has the right of retaining certain buildings, and if the nuisance should be directed to anything of that kind then the matter is one which should be looked into I can assure the honourable and learned Member that between now and the Bill reaching another place it will be further examined."
That shows that the Government wish to preclude the right of an injunction only during the period of the Festival of Britain, and that the view of the Minister of Transport at that stage was that Clause 4 did not extend beyond that

1443
period. The view I take of the wording of Clause 4—
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity in the gardens, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act"—
those works will be the ones that will be authorised under this Act—
"if executed or carried on by the County Council, the Company or any person authorised in that behalf by either of them, shall be deemed to be authorised by this Act notwithstanding that it would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance"—
is that it means "in perpetuity." In the case of any nuisance arising from any works started under this Act, in perpetuity, the person suffering from that nuisance, or thinking that he suffers from that nuisance, shall he precluded from seeking the remedy of an injunction in the courts, even if the works are carried on by the County Council after the Festival of Britain ceases. That is the construction I place upon the language of Clause 4. If that is so, then it goes beyond what I believe the Government wish to do. My Amendment is put down to show that we only wish to preclude a man from an injunction during the time of the Festival of Britain, and no longer. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, after ("shall") insert ("during the continuance of the Festival of Britain and no longer").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: The account which the noble Lord has given of what happened and the reply of the Minister of Transport in another place is perfectly correct. The Minister did promise to consider it, and that consideration has taken place. As a result, I may save the time of the House, as we have a great deal more Business to get through to-day, if I tell your Lordships that I am authorised to say that, while the Government agree that something further is needed to clarify the position, they are not satisfied with the words of the noble Lord's Amendment. Would the noble Lord be willing to withdraw it and put down these words:
"Page 3, line 41, leave out 'in the gardens,' and insert 'for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day'"?
The clause would then read:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day …"
1444
I am advised that that legally would make perfectly clear what the noble Lord wishes to carry out.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord opposite has no doubt put forward words which he thinks will achieve our joint purpose, but surely they ought to be:
"for the purposes of the Festival of Britain"
instead of
"for the purposes of the gardens."
I do not know what that means. Would it not be more appropriate to have
"for the purposes of the Festival of Britain before the appointed day"?
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord could not have that because, as I understand it, it is proposed to have a separate date for the closing, of the South Bank site. A month later the gardens will close. They will go on for a month after.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not mind that. I am sure the words are offered in all good faith by the noble Lord, but I am amazed at the drafting, if I may say so with great respect. If one considers this wording:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day, and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act."
one regards it as indicating a fellow going out with a spade and digging up the beds.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The word "gardens" is defined, but I am still not clear.
LORD MORRISON: That is at page 7.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I see that Clause 11 says:
"'the gardens' means festival gardens provided or to be provided on lands enclosed or to be enclosed by virtue of subsection (1) of section one of this Act."
Perhaps that does make it a little clearer. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, wishes to address the Committee. While he is doing so, I will sit down and consider these words.
LORD LLOYD: I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, a question. If I have it right, the clause would read:
"The execution of works and the carrying on of any activity for the purposes of the gardens before the appointed day.…"

1445
Would that not exclude the following words:
"and the execution of any works authorised or required by any other provision of this Act …"?
The restaint against injunctions would still apply to other works. I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord's Amendment would cover that point as well.
LORD MORRISON: Yes, I think it would.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am afraid that I am still at a loss on this matter. The point of my noble friend's Amendment, as I understand it, is that if we go back to Clause 3 we find
"If it appears to the County Council that it is desirable that any buildings or works erected … for the purposes of the gardens"—
then they agree with the company as to the payment and so on. Then in Clause 4, it seems to me, if these works are made permanent action in regard to a nuisance would be permanently removed. I do not think that is covered by the wording suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD MORRISON: I think the position is that another place was quite agreed in principle that it would be intolerable if it were possible to obtain an injunction while the Exhibition or gardens were being prepared because it would stop the whole work; it would be equally intolerable if it were possible to obtain an injunction during the Exhibition because it would stop the Exhibition. But immediately the Exhibition is over it ought not to be possible for anybody to continue to create a nuisance without there being an opportunity to object. That is the position. For instance, according to this Amendment as I am advised, if the London County Council were to take over some of the entertainment at the end and continue to use the loudspeakers, action would then lie against the London County Council for the use of these loudspeakers and for creating a nuisance; and they could not claim that they were exempt.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In faith and hope I will accept the words that the noble Lord proposes. I am certain the Government mean to put in the right words and mean the right thing. I should
1446
have thought it difficult to conceive that using a loudspeaker was "for the purposes of" any gardens. Be that as it may, I think the Government have tried to meet me, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I must say I would much sooner that he proposed these other words than that I should adopt them as my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the Amendment with the new words.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("in the gardens") and insert ("for the put Poses of the gardens before the appointed day ").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Application of provisions of 12 and 13 Geo. 6. c. 26]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LLOYD: I would like to raise two points on the question of traffic in Chelsea during the Festival, because there is anxiety felt that the inevitably greatly enhanced traffic there as a result of these gardens will lead to considerable inconvenience to local residents. I am sure His Majesty's Government have that in mind and that they are examining the whole of the traffic and transport situation round these gardens to see that it flows as smoothly as possible, and that the ordinary people who work in Chelsea will be able to get to their work without too great inconvenience. There is bound to be some problem because King's Road, which is the main artery in Chelsea, is extremely narrow. If you try to double the amount of traffic travelling down that road there will be very serious traffic congestion. I raise those points because of anxiety that has been expressed to me in Chelsea, and if the noble Lord can give me some assurance that this will be fully looked into I think it would be much appreciated by the residents in Chelsea generally.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord and I have been in correspondence over this, and I am glad to be able to give him some further information on the points which he has raised with regard to the two questions of traffic problems and car parking. The Festival of Britain

1447
Office will maintain the closest consultation with the Railway Executive and the London Transport Executive with a view to ensuring minimum interference with normal travel. The time of opening in the morning will be so arranged as to avoid any clash with morning "peak" travel. Special attractions will be designed in the afternoons with the object of delaying the departure of visitors from the gardens until after the normal evening "peak" has passed. Sloane Square station is being reconstructed; the Ministry of Transport are arranging for additional new omnibuses to be available to augment existing road services and to provide some special services to relieve the strain on the normal routes. The Railway Executive are planning special excursions and improved services to stations near to Battersea Park. Some minor road works will be carried out to improve the means of access. The Commissioner of Police has said that he will do all in his power to discourage indiscriminate parking. He can be successful in this respect only if there are adequate authorised parking places to which motorists can be directed. In this connection, the Commissioner attaches the highest importance to the car park to be provided in Battersea Park; without this facility he considered it impossible to achieve the object set. I hope that will assure the noble Lord.
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that full assurance. I am sure that it will meet the points raised by the people whose anxieties I have represented this afternoon.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions as to river traffic]:
5.16 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "in the byelaws, and in particular" and to insert:
"by or under the byelaws, and in particular byelaws under this subsection may make, or authorise the making of, provision as respects all or any such persons or vessels—
(a) for restricting the provision of passenger services to the provision thereof by persons authorised in that behalf."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to allow authorisation of operators of vessels, and the fixing of time-tables and any changes thereof, to
1448
be made readily as and when necessary, otherwise than by formal bylaws. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("in the byelaws, and in particular") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next three Amendments are consequential on the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out from ("of") to ("or") in line 14, and insert ("specified descriptions")
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("such") and insert ("specified")
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("as may be so specified ")
—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grants towards providing additional landing stages]:
LORD MORRISON: There are four Amendments to Clause 8 and they all run together. Their purpose is to enable the Hammersmith Metropolitan Borough Council to contribute towards the cost of constructing, maintaining and operating a landing stage at Hammersmith. At present they have no powers which would enable them to do this. The Council are desirous of having these powers and it is understood that they will in due course be seeking permanent powers in the normal way through a London County Council (General Powers) Bill. This process could not, however, be completed in time to permit of the landing stage being constructed in time for the Festival. This Amendment was discussed and agreed with the Port of London Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("make") insert ("and a metropolitan borough council may make,")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("or a metropolitan borough council")
Page 6, line 43, after ("constructing") insert ("(including, in the case of grants by a metropolitan borough council, expenses so incurred in maintaining and operating)")
Page 6, line 45, at end insert ("; and a metropolitan borough council may borrow for the purposes of this, section ").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL
5.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that your Lordships have found the drafting of this Bill simple. I confess that a great deal of trouble has been taken about the drafting, and I think it illustrates the saying which I have often heard, that it takes much longer to draft a thing simply than it does to draft it in a complex form. I think I can claim that the drafting of this Bill is simple and that everyone can understand it.
The Bill arises, of course, out of the decision of India which was dealt with at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I would like, by way of introduction, just to remind your Lordships of part of the Resolution at that conference:
"The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that, under the new Constitution which is about to be adopted, India shall become a sovereign independent republic.
The Government of India have, however, declared and affirmed India's desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, and her acceptance of the King as a symbol of the free association of its independent, free nations and, as such, the head of the Commonwealth.
The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the bases of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India's continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration."
1450
The Commonwealth can never claim, I think, to have been a wholly logical association of States. But the hallmark of the Commonwealth which has distinguished it from any other association of States in the history of the world is that there is and always has been complete freedom extending to all its members. It is idle to pretend that some of us do not regret the formation of an Indian Republic. Yet we all recognise India's right to work out her own salvation on whatever lines seem to her best to accord with her history and her traditions and hopes for the future.
The new Constitution is to come into force in January, and I have had to consider the legal implications which are involved. I had thought what clear and satisfactory answers I could give to some of the questions which might be put to me. What, for instance, it might be said, would be the position of Lord Sinha, whom we all rejoice to have amongst us as a member of this House; what would be the position of Sir Madhavan Nair, who for so many years has given us most valuable assistance in ihe Privy Council? Again, what would be the position of all those people who, with the necessary technical qualifications and degrees, are carrying on their professions in this country? What would be the position in regard to Customs and Preferences between the two countries, and complicated questions relating to British ships and the like? To all those questions it would have been very difficult to accord clear and convincing answers. We might have found ourselves involved in a series of debates in which we were dealing with comparatively small, trumpery points which might have given rise to some irritation, when really we are here dealing with something which is fundamentally big and, I hope, not to be disturbed by those small considerations. It was to clear away those difficulties that the present Bill has been introduced.
I should make it clear to your Lordships that I regard it as almost certain that in the future India will pass her own legislation dealing with citizenship. I fully contemplate that when she does pass that legislation, it will be necessary for us in our turn to look at ours and, perhaps, produce legislation of our own arising out of her legislation. These matters are for the future, but, for the

1451
present, I think we are plainly right in asserting by this Bill that, notwithstanding the change due to the formation of a Republic, the legal position will be preserved in relation to India and in relation to persons and things belonging to or connected with India. This Bill, when it passes into law, will enact that everything in law is to remain as it would have been if the change had not been made. So it treats this change as being a matter of form rather than a matter of substance. It is very satisfactory to me to be able to record that this Bill received unanimous support and welcome in another place. I feel sure that your Lordships, too, will give it a welcome, for I am certain that whatever hankerings after the past or misgivings for the future we may have, we are united in wishing India and the peoples of India happiness and prosperity for the future. We hope they may be able to pursue a path which shows toleration of their varying peoples, and which respects the dignity of the individual and the rights of nations.
I must say that from the survey I have had of the proposed Constitution I think there is very much to applaud in that work, which, of course, is a matter entirely for India. I am sure I am speaking for all your Lordships when I say that our old association with India and old memories of difficulties met and overcome together make us all the more anxious to do everything we can to ensure that the future of India and of her governors is a happy and prosperous one. I believe that by passing this Bill and removing a small technical difficulty which might otherwise arise at the present time, we are doing the right and wise thing. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.30 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition to state the view of those who sit on these Benches in regard to this Bill. Its purpose has been clearly explained by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and the Bill itself is a model of simplicity. Its shortness is no measure of its importance. It is of fundamental importance to ourselves and to all the other members of
1452
the Commonwealth. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it had an unopposed passage in another place, and I hope the same attitude will be adopted in this House.
The decision taken in April last by all the members of the Commonwealth to accept India's proposal that she should become a Republic and yet remain a full member of the Commonwealth was an important and far-reaching decision. I should not be honest if I did not confess that the proposal to become a Republic filled my mind with anxiety, and I think that is true of others who sit on these Benches. Frankly, I should have been happier if India had felt able to take the more orthodox path, like other members of the Commonwealth, including the two Asiatic Dominions of Pakistan and Ceylon, and remain a Dominion within the Commonwealth. That is a relationship with which we are familiar and a state of affairs which we understand, and not unnaturally there was some uneasiness in our minds at the thought of a step into the unknown. But the British Commonwealth has never been afraid of a step into the unknown. Its strength is in its adaptability to changing world conditions, and when all the free sister nations of the Commonwealth met in April last and agreed to this proposal it was a notable achievement. It was especially notable that this agreement should have been obtained in a world where discord is the rule. It gives one faith in the future of our great family of nations. It is our duty now to take the practical steps which follow this decision and I believe we should take them in good will, whatever our anxieties have been, as an earnest of our desire that relations between India and the rest of the Commonwealth should continue to be close and happy.
The Bill confers considerable benefits upon India—make no mistake about it, there are considerable benefits—in the retention of full membership of the Commonwealth. They include the trade preferences between India and ourselves, and the provisions of our law respecting Indians and Indian property in this country. It also confers rights upon Indians in the Colonies and protectorates and United Kingdom trust territories, subject, of course, to the existing rights of the Colonial Legislatures. That is one

1453
side of the picture. On the other side, apart from reciprocal provisions in India, let us acknowledge the great benefit which we and the sister nations of the Commonwealth retain by the continuance of India in our fellowship. One has only to look farther east at China, where the spread of doctrines at variance with the conceptions of our free nation is taking place, to realise that India, if in close and happy association with the rest of the Commonwealth, can make a great contribution to the stability of the Commonwealth and to the peace of the world.
I have heard that there are certain anxieties about points arising from this Bill. It has been put to me that there is some uncertainty about the nationality of persons born in India of British parents. As I read the Bill, it has no effect on that at all, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will refer to that in his reply. Another anxiety that has been expressed is that the Bill gives wide powers to His Majesty's Government to act by Orders in Council. At times Parliament have been hesitant and suspicious about the wide use of Orders in Council, but I note that in another place the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations gave a pledge, to which I attach importance. The Secretary of State said:
"On any matter of controversial or substantial importance we shall not seek to act under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, that is, by Order in Council. I give the House that pledge."
So that if there are matters of controversy or importance in regard to citizenship and so on, Orders in Council will not be used, but Parliament will be consulted in the normal way.
As the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is one thing of prime importance in this agreement—namely, that India agrees to accept His Majesty the King as the symbol of the free association of the members of our family. As such he is head of the Commonwealth. And it was the Leader of the Opposition in another place who said that he conceived that the very great significance and value of our monarchy seemed thereby to be enhanced. I trust that this mutual bond may yet prove to be the strongest of all, and that India in future may grow to have that feeling of affection which is, I think, the strongest emotion in all our hearts here, and which I believe sustains and strengthens the free people of the
1454
Commonwealth more than any other factor. Such is my earnest wish.
The Constitution which India has framed as a result of three years of hard work in her Constituent Assembly is of the greatest interest not only to this country but to all the Dominions. It is entirely for India to frame, and the request I am now going to make is in no sense any infringement of that sovereign right, but rather that we should have complete information. I hope it can be arranged that when the Constitution is framed, it can be published in the form of a White Paper or made available in some way to Parliament, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say in his reply if that can be done. It is not only of interest to ourselves but also to other members of the Commonwealth.
In passing, I note with interest, from what I have seen of the Constitution, that the framework of the much-maligned 1935 Government of India Act has been fairly extensively used, and perhaps those who toiled over this Act and tried to work it, both in this country and in India, may take a little solace from that. The most significant thing in all this is the foundation of India's desire to stay in the Commonwealth, which I believe is good feeling towards this country. There are many manifestations that that good feeling is alive and growing. I will not weary your Lordship with this, though I could readily give a number of examples. Technical advisers are being asked to go out to India. Business men are expanding their business in a good atmosphere. The Indian Navy is commanded by a flag officer who is a distinguished British Admiral well known to your Lordships. Bankers and business men have recently visited India and have been well received and their advice sought. If your Lordships will forgive me one, personal illustration, I should like to tell you that the other day I received a report of the Scots Kirk in Bombay—a church which I used to attend when I was there—and whose congregation had its fair share of hard-headed business men and bankers. That congregation is increasing in numbers. Its minister reports with pride that it has gone up in numbers in the last year and is larger than it was before the war.

1455
Your Lordships may say that these are straws, but straws show the way the wind blows, and, with encouragement, it should blow fair. We must do our best to give help and encouragement to India in all our actions. It would be right and proper to say that this atmosphere of good will is also evident in the sister Dominion of Pakistan. When India was divided, part of the great work of the British in past years in the sub-continent fell to Pakistan, and it is true to say that in that country there has been good feeling towards us, too. We must in all our dealings be most careful to show impartiality, and as between these two countries to do our best to help them equally with their problems. In that way we can help them to get on with each other. As was said in another place, complications may arise in the future working of this Bill, perhaps in relation to future legislation in India regarding citizenship. But if we have a sure foundation of good will and good understanding we should not fear this. We can make a contribution to-day by our attitude towards this Bill. It is quite true that good will alone is not enough: there must be acts, there must be agreements and there must be the visible ties which bind nations together. But all that is of no worth at all unless there is the foundation of proper understanding. Let us make our contribution to that to-day by giving no grudging passage to this Bill.
5.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the adoption by India of the particular course which is reflected in this Bill has obviously set a considerable problem from the legislative and legal point of view. We welcome the solution which is contained in this Bill, and in particular the effect it will have in preserving in this House and on these Benches the noble Lord, Lord Sinha, whose value has already been proved to your Lordships' House. For the rest, we fervently trust that the new order which is signalised by the Bill will bring to India prosperity, progress and peace. During the past thirty years a multiplicity of proposals for the future constitutional status of India have been advanced—some tentatively proffered, and others vigorously pressed. As so often happens, when the
1456
time for decision comes all those suggestions go by the board in face of a further novel suggestion which up to that moment had been scarcely either contemplated or canvassed. It is now in the shape of a Bill on its unimpeded way towards the Statute Book, by the common and ready consent of us all; and it is surely yet one further testimony, if such were needed, of the supreme fact that the Commonwealth is not a manufactured article but an organic growth.
If we may to-day, for one moment, look backward, it will not be for the purpose of reviving obsolete conflicts or rekindling spent passions, but only to accentuate by contrast our gratification at the settlement of differences that once seemed so formidable and so obdurate. If the dead past is to bury its dead, let us at least make it a selective burial, and let us not inter in oblivion the devoted public services, the close personal friendships and the simple and selfless loyalties which have given life and warmth to the story of Britain in India. Those memories must live on into the future, to be the background for what we all hope may be the bright years ahead.
5.46 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, this is a most felicitous occasion. I have the greatest pleasure in associating myself with the speeches of the three noble Lords who have so far contributed to this debate. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the drafting of this Bill, is to be congratulated upon the extreme simplicity with which he has dealt with this complex and difficult matter. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, who has spoken for the Opposition, if he will allow me to say so, played a distinguished part in serving under two Governments in this country and a Government in India—I think this must almost be a record for service—first of all as a distinguished Governor of Bombay, and then on the many occasions when he deputised in Delhi for the Viceroy. I speak with knowledge when I say that on all those occasions he was most helpful to the promotion of good feeling. This was proved by the remarkable fact that he was invited by the Indians to remain Governor in Bombay after the British had left. Finally, the noble Marquess who speaks from the

1457
Liberal Benches, the son of a distinguished Viceroy, has put into beautiful, crystal language the feelings of this people towards India.
I want to congratulate India upon the outcome of her deliberations. When the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, speaks with some pride of those vestiges of the 1935 Act which find a place in the Constitution as now decided in India, I, too, would like to express my pride in that it was the Constituent Assembly, set up in the first instance by the Cabinet Mission, which drafted this Constitution. I sympathise with and fully appreciate the feeling which has been expressed, I think by all three speakers who preceded me, with regard to the decision of India to be a Republic rather than to remain a Dominion in the precise position of our other Dominions. But I understand also how difficult it would have been for that great people of some 300,000,000 souls to have taken any other course than that which they have taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, correctly said, the important thing, after all, is that India has elected to remain within the Commonwealth. That is a tremendous fact, of great benefit, as I believe, to India herself, and of great benefit to this country and to the rest of the Commonwealth. If India had decided otherwise our Commonwealth would have been cut in two geographically. As it is, we remain the largest population of any bloc in the world to-day.
I cannot help looking back to the days when I was sitting on the Bench below, acting as Secretary of State. The anxiety which exercised us all was expressed from time to time by noble Lords in all parts of 'the House—anxiety that this new approach to India might not work out to a successful, lasting good. I shared that anxiety, and perhaps I felt it even more fully than those who expressed it. But I had to remain almost dumb, because I could not respond fully to the number of questions which were asked. It was a most dangerous time, when a misspoken word might have upset the whole chance of a successful issue of the difficulties which beset us. But I feel myself, and from what has been said in this House and in another place I gather that others share my feeling, that the outcome has exceeded anything which could possibly have been hoped for. In those days we did not
1458
know whether there would be civil strife in India, or whether there might be bloodshed in the relations between India and this country. We have reached a successful conclusion of which all those who have had any part in it can be justly proud, and which I believe is going to be of great benefit, net only to ourselves and India, but to the world as a whole. As the Lord Chancellor has said, there may be some further points which will hereafter come before the British Parliament, as a result of some future action taken in India. But this step we are taking to-day takes account of the main change which has been brought about by the decisions of the Constituent Assembly. It provides a lasting solution upon which history will accord, its verdict of admiration and respect.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is little for me to say in reply. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, referred to the distinguished part which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has himself played in bringing about that happy relationship which, fortunately, does prevail to-day. I should like to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is himself entitled to a large share of the credit for the happy relationship which now exists, because the people he met when he was out there trusted him and knew that he had a single-minded desire to try and bring about a satisfactory relationship. When I have said all that and I have paid all these tributes, I am, bound to say, since I myself was present on many occasions at this Commonwealth conference, that I think there are two men to whom the credit for the very sensible arrangement we made should be given. Those two men are Pandit Nehru on the one hand, and Clement Attlee on the other. It was an exceedingly difficult position with which we were faced and there were all sorts of technical difficulties which might have been raised against the solution to which we came. These two men, by a process of tolerance, give-and-take, and determination to solve difficulties, managed to surmount all those difficulties and bring about the happy state of affairs which is enshrined in this Bill. Pandit Nehru is faced with an immensely difficult task. I myself believe that the success of that task is of vital importance,

1459
not only to India but to the world, and this discussion in this House to-day may be taken as showing that all Parties in this country, no matter what their political differences may be, wish India well in solving the problems which lie ahead.
One or two questions were asked with which I can deal very briefly. So far as any question of nationality is concerned, it is not affected by this Bill. The whole point of the Bill is that the law remains exactly as it is, notwithstanding the decision of India to became a Republic. With regard to Orders in Council, I will repeat the assurance which was given before. The only Order in Council I have in mind at the present time is one of no moment at all, dealing with a matter of superannuation, or something of that sort. It is for matters of that kind that this machinery will be used. The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, made an interesting suggestion about a White Paper setting out the Indian Constitution when it is finally passed. I am sure it is all to the good that all of us here should have ample opportunity of seeing what has been enacted. Whether a White Paper is necessary, I rather doubt. I think we should be able to obtain a sufficient number of copies of the new Constitution to put in the library. But I certainly think it entirely to the good that members of both Houses should have an opportunity of seeing what has been enacted, and if it is necessary to take any specific steps to that end I will see that those steps are taken. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the way in which you have accepted this Bill and for the way in which you have assisted in the send-off of the new Republic.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
5.58 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL
5.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Collection, realisation and distribution of German enemy property
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, an Order in Council under this section may make provision as to the following matters:
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder, and the administrator shall comply with any such direction.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"(h) the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed by the administrator or questions as to the amount of claims or objections to claims admitted by the administrator or to the inclusion of property as German enemy property with such limitations as may be thought fit as to the minimum amount involved in the appeal being sufficient to justify the same."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is not of an epoch-making character, because it only seeks to make clear that the Orders in Council, under which this Bill has effect, shall include provision for the establishment of an independent tribunal to which appeals may be made in respect of claims disallowed or questions as to amount, and other matters of that sort. Your Lordships observe that it is purely permissive, and that the Government are entitled to set about the making of these Orders in Council in such a way as they think fit, subject to the control of Parliament. The reason I attribute great importance to the establishment of a tribunal will appear if your Lordships

1461
will allow me, in the space of perhaps not more than rive minutes, to explain what this Bill is about and the great difficulties that will be experienced in carrying it into effect.
The Bill deals with the effect which has been produced by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1939, Section 7, which came into force two days after the outbreak of war. In that Act provision was made for the collection and custody of enemy property—which was elaborately described in the Act. It will be observed that the footing on which the Government could make such a Bill effective was that it dealt with property which was within British jurisdiction. The Bill does not express in so many words the fact that it is only enemy property in England, but that follows from the fact—as your Lordships can see if you look at Section 14—that the Bill is rigidly confined to the powers which His Majesty's Government have to deal with the matter by Orders in Council. The position, therefore, is that Section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act provided for the collection of money and property of all kinds which belonged to the enemy (that is to say, at the time of the coming into force of the Act. Germans) which was therefore property which in the event of war—which had in fact taken place—it was possible for the Government to con-trot with a view to preventing the payment of money to enemies and, in some instances, perhaps, of preserving, in contemplation of a future peace.
The Act provided that such property should be passed on by the Board of Trade to custodians of enemy property for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively, and to require the handing over of that enemy property to these custodians. That Act resulted in the appointment of custodians and, though it seems not quite so long to me, it is ten years since the Act was passed. The war has been fought, and the next event—which gave rise to the Bill now before your Lordships—vas that the war was won; and there is now probably a vast amount of property belonging to enemies which has been collected by the various custodians and which now falls for distribution. The Bill before your Lordships, therefore, provides for the appointment of an administrator who is to distribute the property collected by the
1462
custodians and certain other property which, for some special reason, he has not been able to recover. The fund amounts, I understand, to something between £100,000,000 and £120,000,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Fifteen million pounds available and 120,000,300 claims.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am sorry. For a moment the figures slipped my mind—but they have been properly stated by my noble friend. Those sums have to be distributed, either to the Government in case of a Government claim (and it is suggested that the Government will claim between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000) or to resident British subjects or British subjects who are carrying on business in Britain, or companies or corporations (I am stating it very briefly) who are carrying on business in this country. What the Bill seeks to do here, therefore, is to make provision for tae distribution from a large pool of many millions of pounds belonging or which had belonged to Germans and which had been seized by this country. There would be a large number of British subjects or companies who are here for the purpose of carrying on business—and that would be in addition to Government claims. Those being the circumstances, I am concerned only to give your Lordships my view as to the great complexity and difficulty of the task which lies before the Government.
It is proposed that this task should be accomplished—and I think it is not an unreasonable suggestion—by Orders in Council and provision is made for a large number of matters which are set out in Clause 1 (2) of the Bill before your Lordships. Provision is made for the appointment by the Board of Trade of an administrator and for the conferring of powers on him; for the transfer to him of enemy property in this country which is in the hands of custodians; for the manner and time in which claims in respect of the German enemy debts (as they are called) are to be made; and for the furnishing and verification of information in connection with such claims including the production of books, proof of the claims, distribution of the proceeds, charging of fees, and so forth—I need not trouble your Lordships with details of the disposal of the sums.
I remember quite well the method adopted in similar circumstances for the

1463
distribution of enemy property in this country after the 1914–18 war. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon also will remember the method by which that was carried out, as will the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will probably know of people who, not perhaps wholly without remuneration, were employed as counsel in these matters. There were a great number of such cases, and they involved great complexity and difficulty. The same thing was done, for instance, in France, and I remember that great interest was displayed all over Europe in the way in which the Governments which were distributing the pool of enemy property in their country carried out the work—first, claiming the right amounts and not claiming things to which they were not entitled, and secondly, distributing the pool on equal and fair terms in accordance with the legal rights of the parties, among the people who were nationals of the country where the distribution was being, made. With all respect to the noble Lord opposite, although I know, from reading, his speeches, that he has taken a great interest in and much care over this matter, I cannot help thinking that up to the present time he has not fully appreciated the enormous complexity of the work which is occasioned in ascertaining the amount and distributing it. Whether or not the noble Lord accepts the Amendment, he, or some person who may occupy his position in the future, will be bound to make provision for legal determinations of the more important questions that will arise.
I will not detain your Lordships by telling you of the various cases in which the body or the person or the civil servants employed in the matter will be bound according to law to determine the question which will arise. I have jotted down these cases which, as any lawyer knows, are among those which will have to be decided under Clause 1 of this Bill or under the Orders in Council which will be made thereunder. Of course, this question is not limited to debts. This is not a case of distributing the proceeds of sale of goods sold and delivered. It is not that. It is any kind of liability. There will be questions of partnerships which came to an end at the beginning of the war ten years ago, and which have been
1464
awaiting final liquidation by some method which can be adopted in order to ascertain how much is due to the English partners. There will be cases under leases. Anybody who has been a lawyer for any length of time will realise the tremendous questions of difficulty that will there arise. Skilled people will have to be employed to interpret the meaning of the various covenants for the upkeep of properties, repairs, papering and all the rest of it. Somebody will have to do that in practically every case of lease, in order to ascertain how much is due, we will say, to the English landlord who has received nothing for ten years.
Then there are cases of agencies where there has been an Englishman employed as an agent for a German person or firm. Money will be due to him. How are you going to work out that? You will have to look at books of sales and purchases over a number of years. Then there is every possible kind of fraud. Anybody who has been engaged in the law knows very well that cases of fraud take a long time to determine. They depend so much upon the truth of the witnesses and upon what confidence is to be placed in their words. All that has to be done by somebody. There are also cases of executors or administrators in this country where there is something payable to an Englishman under a will. Very often it depends upon the true construction of the will. There is a case, about which I had intended to say something if the hour had not been so late, where three times the construction of a particular will has had to go to the House of Lords. In cases of this kind, where these great difficulties arise, it is absolutely necessary to have the question properly determined. Unless you have some such device as I suggest for your employment, you will not be able to get an answer to your question—"To whom?," "How much is payable to an Englishman?" or "From whom is it due?"—I am stating this shortly.
Finally, there are the many cases of trusts. They are difficult and complex cases. Those things cannot be determined by a layman. A great many of the claims and questions that arise under Clause 1 of the Bill are small and easily determined, as I readily agree. As regards those, it would be perfectly easy by Order in Council to make arrangements to the effect that, unless they involved a sum

1465
exceeding a certain amount, they should be determined, without appeal or question, by any person appointed by the Minister. I agree to that because, if the sum is small, it is never worth appealing on. Much time would be saved by appointing a respectable civil servant who knows something about business to determine what should be paid, how much was due and questions of that sort. But there will be cases where the law is concerned, and where it is absolutely necessary to have somebody with experience of the trying of cases, of how to keep people to the point, of how to ensure that the evidence given is admissible and relevant to the questions involved. They will not only give much more satisfaction, they will do the work much more quickly and I am convinced that sooner or later it will be found necessary to adopt some such method as I suggest. Otherwise, you will find hopeless confusion and the greatest dissatisfaction among the people who have a claim to share in the pool, because it will be said that any civil servants who may be employed are making a guess, instead of deciding the matter rightly. Accordingly, there will be no satisfaction in the country. This is one of those cases where it is absolutely essential that the method adopted by the Government in distributing this large sum should be recognised by the country as being just and fair as between the various parties entitled. If the Government do not adopt such a method they will be making a terrible mistake, and they will practically never, certainly in the lifetime of any of us here, get any finality.
There is one other point which I had intended to mention—namely, the so-called option to claim against specific funds. We are told that it is an option that will be allowed only on giving up any right to share in the general pool. I have not put down an Amendment with regard to that matter, but I think one of my noble friends will deal with it. I should like to say, however, that the Order in Council will have to be drawn with the greatest care, because the option to claim against specific funds is apparently one which is purely arbitrary. It does not relate to people who have a legal claim against those funds. So far as I understand it, I do not think it means people who have a charge: I think it is intended to mean—and this is as far as I
1466
can learn from what has been said—people who prima facie would be paid out of specific funds which would have been available but for the war—out of such things as Austrian and perhaps German loans—and limited to those things, and to nothing else.
With regard to those, I give a warning that, unless the phrase is very clearly defined, nobody will agree as to what it means, and there will be a great deal of heart-burning, because people will think they are entitled to al option, whereas, as I understand it, the option will be available in only a few cases, and the great bulk of the claimants will have a share in the pool. I do not think I need read again the whole of the Amendment proposed. As I have said, it is only in the nature of a suggestion for the Government. I am not wedded to my form of words. It may be that something a great deal better can be produced; and of course, if the Government say they will bear it in mind and use some such device as I have suggested, I shall be content, and at this hour of the evening I would not for a moment suggest pressing the matter to a Division. I beg to trove.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened with very great interest to what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I think I can satisfy him that he is suffering under considerable misapprehension—and not only the noble and learned Viscount but a whole host of other people outside your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount said that this Amendment seeks to set up a tribunal—
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: No. This Amendment does not seek to do anything except give power to the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It seeks to give power to set up a tribunal to deal with certain specific things. That is all. The Government's case against setting up this tribunal was stated in general terms upon Second Reading. We hope that the Orders in Council will be so specific as to leave little room for some of the apprehensions that have been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. I will deal seriatim with the Amendment and with what it proposes—

1467
namely, that the following matters shall be subject to appeal to the tribunal: (a) claims disallowed by the administrator; (b) questions as to the amounts of claims; (c) objections to claims admitted by the administrator; and (d) objections to the inclusion of property as German enemy property. Perhaps the point which is worrying the minds of noble Lords opposite is in regard to the function of this administrator. He is to administer the fund or pool under Orders in Council which will, as we all hope, be specific. In that, noble Lords must accept some responsibility, as these Orders in Council may be considered by the House, as they will be subject to negative Resolution. If one does not work, the Government may substitute it by another.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: We cannot amend them. If one could amend an Order in Council by Resolution in Parliament it would be all right; but one cannot.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Order in Council can be negatived and another put in its place. That is what we hope to do, and we hope that we shall have considerable help from noble Lords in relation to Orders in Council. We are not going to pass one blanket Order in Council telling the administrator to get on with the job. The Orders are going to be in some detail, and the decision as to the ranking of a debt will not be made by the administrator. He will be given a document by which he will be bound. His duty will be to admit claims which comply with the conditions laid down and to reject the others. The noble and learned Viscount has brought in the proceedings after the last war. He rather alluded to them as the "good old days," when he and other noble and learned Lords had very nice remunerations.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I assume you mean the First World War.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I always call the earlier war "the last war," and this war "the recent war." I mean the 1914–1918 war. But the two cases are in no way similar. As I pointed out on Second Reading, under the procedure after the 1914–1918 war the proceedings before the arbitral tribunals were interpartes. The tribunals were set up for the full and final settlement of debts
1468
in the distribution of German enemy assets among nationals of the belligerents. It was only right that there should then be a judicial arbitral tribunal, because, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, that tribunal stood above the courts of law of this country. But here the circumstances are entirely different, as I hope to convince the noble and learned Viscount. Here we are dealing with a specific sum of money which has accrued to His Majesty's Government by the arrangements at Potsdam and the Paris Agreement as the British Government's share of reparations, with which sum the British Government can do just as it pleases.
The Bill does not, by any means, provide for the full and complete settlement of German enemy debts. All that it does is to provide for the distribution of a limited sum of money made available by His Majesty's Government to certain claimants who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Order in Council. The administrator's decision will not be binding on the parties, and any creditor whose claim is rejected will still retain his rights against the debtor, just as the debtor will not be prejudiced by the fact that a claim has been admitted by the administrator. It will not affect any action which they like to take in law.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really do not understand that. There is a fund which has to be ascertained and collected. It is ultimately like a fund of money; it is in a pool. Hundreds of people have a claim against the pool. Each one who gets more than he is properly entitled to diminishes the amount that other people may get. If many people are given more than they are entitled to, it means that many other people will get less than they are entitled to. So they are vitally interested in being given a right amount.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are not entitled to anything at the present moment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: They will be entitled to something under this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are entitled only to something which is set out by the Orders in Council as to the classes and the amounts. No one has any right whatsoever to this money

1469
at the present moment, except His Majesty's Government. Rights will be conferred by the Orders in Council. I am now dealing only with the point as to determination of rights, and I am saying that this Bill does not pretend in any way to settle debts as between debtor and creditor. Nothing in the Bill alters the position vis-à-vis the one or the other. This is the method which His Majesty's Government have adopted to give some relief to those who they think should have a share of these German reparations. Let me explain further that under the Bill the administrator has the duty of distributing moneys to pre-war creditors of Germany—moneys which are, or will be, in the hands of His Majesty's Government. The administrator has not to discharge liabilities of German debtors. All he is concerned with, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is bringing some relief to United Kingdom creditors of Germany. That, I should have thought, is plain enough. I, at least, understand it, so I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount does.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask a question at this point? The administrator has to ascertain the manner and time in which claims in respect of enemy debts are to be put forward and determine whether the claim is established. Is it not his duty to ascertain what is due to each of the claimants? It is true that the pool will not be enough to pay all the creditors. I do not want to be offensive if I can help it, but it is clear in my opinion that, according to this measure, it is the administrator's duty to ascertain the amount of the claims and to have them proved, in order that no one shall get a bigger share than that to which he is entitled.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That will be largely for the Orders in Council to determine. This is not a judicial court and the principles that will be enforced will be far less exacting than must be the case under a judicial court such as the noble and learned Viscount mentioned.
Perhaps I can now proceed to the next matter which the Amendment proposes should be open to appeal—questions as to the amount of claims. I do not quite see what is meant by this—perhaps the
1470
noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. It may be that his proposal is designed to deal with cases where a claimant asks for, say, £100, and the administrator is prepared to admit a claim for only, say, £75. If it is the intention to submit questions of this kind to the tribunal it can mean only one of two things. Either the administrator is regarded as standing in the shoes of the debtor or the appeal tribunal will themselves re-investigate the whole case if there is an appeal. Whatever dispute there may be as to the amount of debt lies between debtor and creditor. The administrator is not to be in the position of being or representing the debtor. He will decide on the information and evidence submitted to him. I think the tribunal cannot work over every case afresh.
The third matter, in this part of the Amendment is "objections to claims admitted by the administrator." The question may have arisen in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount: What is the position of His Majesty's Government? Are they going to claim priority for any claim they make against this fund? I would like to assure noble Lords that His Majesty's Government will be treated, when the machinery established by the Bill is in operation, in exactly the same way as everyone else. There is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to claim or to expect to receive preferential treatment, either as to the amount payable or as to the time by which payment is to be made.
On the question of a general appeal, does the noble and learned Viscount argue that Mr. Brown who may or may not be a creditor, who may or may not have had his claim allowed, can appeal against the administrator's award to a Mr. Smith? Is it suggested that if the noble and learned Viscount is a successful applicant for a share in the pool, then I, who am quite outside and have no interest whatsoever, have a right to lodge an appeal against the noble and learned Viscount's getting a share at all? That is what the Amendment says. Surely, that cannot be meant. No one can be given that right.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not like to interrupt again. I will say something about that later on.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As between classes of claimants there is no person or body of persons who can be given rights in their appeal. The classes of claim will be laid down in the Order and no person would be clothed with powers to represent other classes whom he may imagine are prejudiced.
The last cause for appeal in this Amendment relates to the treatment of some piece of property as German enemy property. This presumably means that the appeal tribunal are expected to decide whether or not property in the administrator's hands comes within the definition of German enemy property contained in Clause 8. It is possible that this is the matter which is worrying the noble and learned Viscount. Money and property which are not within the terms of the definition are completely outside the operation of the Bill. If it is claimed on behalf of an owner that his property is not covered by the definition and his claim for release is refused, the owner has an undoubted right to sue the administrator in the courts and so to have the matter decided. I cannot think that it is preferable to insert a tribunal between a claimant and the courts, because no decision which the tribunal could arrive at would overrule the decision of the courts or his right to go to the courts.
Finally, the noble Viscount's Amendment seeks to say that only those who have a claim above a certain amount shall be allowed to appeal. I appreciate that the intention, as the noble Viscount has said, is to reduce the number of appeals, but I would suggest that it is against the principles of justice and equity that claimants for a large amount, who are likely to be wealthy men or companies, should have a course open to them not allowed to persons with smaller claims, which might presuppose that they are less wealthy.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is done every day in the courts.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think noble Lords in this House would not like to support that.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount is being courteous to me. As he said originally, I am trying to handle
1472
a matter of some complexity. There is nothing in this Bill which can prevent any kind of body being set up for any of the purposes which the noble Viscount wants. If the worst fears of the noble Viscount are realised, though the Government do not think they will be, and there are cases in which the Government think justice will not be done unless the administrator's decision is confirmed by some tribunal or in some other appropriate way, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a tribunal being set up; and it is the Government's intention, if such a difficulty arises, to see that something is done to meet that case. We resist this Amendment because we think that the setting up of a tribunal should not be obligatory, for the reasons I have outlined.
6.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I can assure the noble Lord that the few words I will say will be said with perfect courtesy to him. I am acutely conscious of the fact that he has devoted himself to the study of a complex question and has done his utmost to advise us by his explanation. All who hear him or read what he has said will be glad to hear the decision announced that there is to be no claim of Crown priority in this case. I understand that one claim which may arise is from the guarantee given some time ago to the Austrian Loan, amounting, I believe, to £4,000,000. If this were proceeded with on the basis that the Crown helps itself to its own debt before anybody else gets anything, that would seriously interfere with the prospects of private claimants. But I gather that nothing of the sort is to be claimed. In the same way, there may be a problem of German debtors who may be liable to past income tax. There again, if that were granted in priority to private claims, it would seriously interfere with the prospect of private individuals—I think I understand rightly, from the noble Lord's indication of assent, that I am correctly stating what he informed us to be the decision of the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Precisely.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I say it with complete courtesy; I rather doubt whether the noble Lord has appreciated what really is the main point involved

1473
here, however it is decided. I understand, and he has stated most clearly, that the administrator is to distribute the pool among the pre-war creditors of Germany. I understand that in the Order in Council we shall find that different claimants are divided into classes which will be devised. I do not think the noble Lord has followed that there may be a dispute whether a person is or is not a pre-war creditor, and if that dispute arises in a case involving a substantial sum of money, the practical question is whether the administrator should say, "I do not regard you as a pre-war creditor and I will not include you," or should say, "I am going to treat you as a pre-war creditor and that is all there is about it." That is the nature of the difficulty. I understand the noble Lord to say that the Government will take care to divide people into classes and to deal with the matter within those classes. My point, however (I think the noble Lord will follow me, and I speak with complete moderation), is that the question is likely to arise whether a particular case falls within a certain class or not. He will say that the administrator would decide that. The whole question is: is that in the circumstances right?
The reason why I have referred to the First World War is that then it was found difficult to decide in some cases whether it was a case of German property within the meaning of the arrangement, whether it was a case of pre-war creditor or not, or whether the case fell within a class. Therefore, the question is—and the noble Lord will see that it is a proper question to raise—whether that should be decided administratively by the administrator, who no doubt will do his best and will be very skilled, or whether it is a case where there ought to be some opportunity of an appeal to a tribunal which, of course, has no interest at all except to decide the case rightly and where neither the claims of the Government nor those of any other class matter at all. I can understand the argument that because there will be many cases, and the amounts involved will be small, this is unnecessarily elaborate. Speaking for myself, would listen to that argument with attention and I hope without prejudice. But it is not the case that what is proposed by the noble Lord in his speech solves those questions, because it leaves the
1474
administrator to decide. It is to be decided administratively and not by any judicial process.
There are only two other observations I venture to make. The noble Lord started by saying, and it rather shocked me, that after all this was very good of the Government, because all this money really belongs to the Government, and it is nothing except their excessive kindness of heart which makes them propose that people who are pre-war creditors should get some of it. I say it rather shocked me for this reason: for hundreds of years past it has never been any part of international law that because we go to war with a country the victorious Power seizes for itself the private property of citizens of the enemy country. That has not been the practice of civilised nations according to international law for hundreds of years. It is permitted to seize property at sea; and that raises the question about prize money. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree at once that you will not find in any international law book that the ancient and barbaric practice of seizing people's private property and putting it into the pockets of victorious Governments on land is a thing which people would foster at the present day. So I do not think it is quite the case that this all belongs to the Government and that they are now being so benevolent in arranging for its distribution.
The other point is this. The noble Lord says—and he may be right—that what my noble and learned friend is pressing is already in the Bill. If it is in the Bill already, is it not rather a pity to make such a song and dance about the proposal? It does not appear to be so very foolish, so wicked, confusing or discourteous, if it is already in the Bill. I do not know whether the right view is that it is in the Bill; I would pay great attention to what the Lord Chancellor said about that if he thought it right to speak.
I would say, finally, that what is here proposed is not, as I think the noble Lord by mistake observed, that something obligatory is being put on the administrator; there is nothing obligatory about it at all. The Amendment is providing merely that those who draw up the Order in Council shall have power to provide for an appeal tribunal in such cases as the

1475
Order in Council thinks it well to leave open to them. That is not putting any obligation on anybody; it is only making plain that we desire, subject to what the Government think is a fair provision to make, that in the more important cases there should be clearly power to make an Order in Council which contains those provisions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will appreciate that I am pointing out where I felt the argument he has addressed to your Lordships is a little deficient; and I am not without hopes that even now those on the Government Bench might feel it is reasonable to include this as one of the matters which might be provided for in the Order in Council which the Government will draft.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I reply to the noble and learned Viscount straightway? I am fully conscious of what he has said. It is because of these difficulties that the proposal was put forward, and is going to be carried out, of forming an advisory committee of all the different classes of creditors. We want them to agree upon a number of things and make a scheme of distribution which we hope will smooth out many of the difficulties. But I must repeat that we are in no way settling German debts. This money which is being distributed will have no effect upon the legal position of the debtors or the creditors. If I may put it in non-legal language, I would say that if someone gets a payment out of this pool, that will not affect his legal right at some future date, if he thinks proper, to sue for the whole amount of his debt. That is the advice I have received.
VISCOUNT SIMON: He can be paid the sum twice over in full?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not saying what view the court will take of it, but this Bill does not alter his legal status. The noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that in these cases I have the best legal advice that is open to me. As the noble and learned Viscount quite rightly said, if after we have done everything possible—having had the advisory committee advise us on the preparation of these Orders in Council, and they having been accepted by Parliament—we then find there are some particularly difficult cases, we shall
1476
see that something is done. It may be that we shall appoint as an arbitrator a judge learned in that particular type of case. But the decision will have to rest with the administrator, subject to whatever appeal we shall adopt. In the circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, particularly at this late hour, but, with great respect, I really begin to think that the noble Lord does not understand the point. The advisory committee is not going to decide whether a big claim is the claim of a pre-war creditor or not; it has absolutely nothing to do with the advisory committee. The advisory committee, I gather, is to give advice—though, of course, you do not promise to follow it—as to how you shall draw up your Order in Council. But that is a wholly different question from that on which I was speaking. Your advisory committee will not in the least help you to decide whether a particular body is or is not a pre-war creditor; it will not in the least help you to decide whether this is, or is not, in the proper sense, German property, because that depends on a particular case. That the advisory committee will tell you how they think the Order in Council should be drawn up has nothing in the world to do with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this matter to see whether I can help at all. I think my noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right in saying that this bears no analogy to what happened after what he called "the last war." Technically he is right in calling it "the last war," because the present war is still on. Therefore, the last war was the 1914–18 war. That is what we mean. Then it was a very different proposition. You had to establish your right against a German debtor, and the obligation imposed by the Peace Treaty upon the German State was to guarantee the amount clue from the debtor—you had a proceeding as between debtor and creditor, and all the rest of it. This is a very different proposition. Here we have a sum of money (we have not seized it; the Potsdam Agreement provided for the award to this Government of German ex-enemy property here) and we are distributing a pool of money. Obviously we are entitled to distribute it

1477
in any way we think right, so long as we do it on fair lines. I agree, of course, that in order to distribute a sum of money you have to ascertain what is the basis upon which you are going to distribute it. In short, you have to pay dividends; and you cannot pay a dividend unless you know the amount on which you are paying the dividend. The dividend is not likely to be very much. I gather that the sum is of the order of £15,000,000 and the estimate of the claims which we have at present is of the order of £120,000,000. Therefore, I suspect the dividend will be something like 10 per cent., or perhaps a little more. When we come to promulgate our Orders in Council, we shall, of course, consider whether we ought to pay that dividend on a flat rate, or whether we should prefer the small man and pay rather less to the big man, or vice versa. All that is for the Orders in Council to provide. I agree that the amount has to be assessed in order that the dividend may be fixed.
It would be possible, of course, to have a tribunal. But the disadvantage of a tribunal is that a good deal of money would probably be eaten up in determining all these questions, and certainly a great deal of time would be taken up by it. We came to the conclusion—and this is the real objection to accepting the Amendment—that, in the circumstances, having this comparatively small sum of money to distribute and it being important that we should distribute it with promptitude, we had better do it administratively, and not have a tribunal. If we had a tribunal, it could be argued that there ought to be an appeal from the tribunal and there might be an appeal up to the highest court, which would expend a great deal of time. On balance, we came to the conclusion that it was better simply to have it done administratively, in order to distribute to these people that which we had.
I may point out that so far as what is German enemy property is concerned, I think people could go to the courts, because the administrator has jurisdiction to deal only with what is ex-enemy property. If he was dealing with something else, he might be brought before the court. He has no jurisdiction in regard to that matter, but only with regard to amount, admission of claims and that sort of thing. I agree that the
1478
problem is: is it better to do this under what is obviously a quicker and cheaper method, or is it better to try to mix that method with a tribunal, at any rate in some of the cases, bearing in mind always that if you have the tribunal hanging over you it does delay to some extent the final payment? Of course, there could be an interim dividend. We came to the conclusion that the better way of doing it was on an administrative basis. Therefore, I feel that, were we to accept this Amendment, it might be thought that we were resigning from the position which we had adopted, and which we stated quite categorically in another place—that we are contemplating doing this by administrative methods. You may say "cheap and nasty." Well, if you get a competent person to do it, I do not know that he will not arrive at substantial justice.
My noble friend Lord Lucas is quite right when he says that what will happen as between debtor and creditor will depend upon the terms of the Peace Treaty. Supposing one of these people did receive, say, 10 per cent. Unless something is written into the Peace Treaty to prevent his recovering his debt in full from the debtor, it would not be a discharge of any part of the debt. In all probability there will be some provision saying that he cannot get the money twice over. If anybody has a claim rejected on these administrative grounds, he is not precluded from all his remedies. He would thereafter be able—perhaps when the Peace Treaty is ultimately signed—to bring his claim against the debtor and get his claim in full, on the hypothesis that he had been paid nothing. That is the short point, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Lucas meant to say anything contrary to that—I did not understand him to say so. But we believe that it is better to do it in this way. Incidentally, I should have thought that there was power to do this under Clause 1 (2) (d), where you will see that the Order in Council may make provision as to the
"determination, as respects any such claim, of the question whether the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim."
I should have thought that under that clause we would be entitled to set up the machinery for determination—namely, a

1479
tribunal. Therefore, with the greatest respect to everybody, and with the most complete courtesy to everybody, I think we are arguing about very little in this case. I do not want to accept the Amendment, because I do not want to lead people to suppose that we are going to try to combine any sort of judicial process when, for reasons which I have given, we think it better to do this by administrative means, by an experienced administrator.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise first for the purpose of saying that I do not think I said anything in my opening speech which should offend the noble Lord opposite.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Nothing whatsoever.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: He accused me of lack of courtesy, but I must say I thought that after he had begun by telling me that I and others who took this view entirely misunderstood the Bill before us—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive my interrupting? In the interests of accuracy, I would point out that I said "suffered under some misapprehension," which is a vastly different thing.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: When the noble Lord looks at his speech he will find that he started by brushing away my opinion as if it was nothing at all. I thought that even if I was not justified in resenting it, it did open to me the ordinary cut and thrust of debate. As he did not think I understood the Bill, I thought I was justified in saying that the boot was really on the other leg. However, there it is, and I am extremely sorry that we have had any heat displayed over this point which, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says, is a very small one.
In the course of my speech, I said that we certainly did not propose to divide upon this Amendment. I was pressing it simply for the consideration of the Government. As I have indicated already, I have a strong belief, which I still maintain, that something of the sort will be necessary. I thought all along that it could possibly be done under
1480
Clause 1 (4), but I was also anxious to find out the Government's view. It may be right, but they rather surprise me at the view they take of this Bill. I did not think that the Government were proceeding on the footing that the property of German enemies in this country was property in which they had forfeited all their rights, and that the Government could take it over. I am talking of civilian property. The view of international lawyers is that conquest in a war does not entitle you to the property of civilians. In Clause 1 it says that:
"His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the collection and realisation of German enemy property and for the distribution of the proceeds."
Now, to whom?—
"to persons who establish claims in respect of German enemy debts."
Is it to be said that the Government can do what they like with it? The Bill certainly does not authorise that. The Bill suggests the distribution among people who are British subjects or companies resident here, who establish claims on enemy debts which the Government have never declared to be their property. That they have a right to distribute in the circumstances is a very different thing, but as I understand this Bill they are not entitled to a single sixpence. In subsection (2) (c) I find that the administrator is to ascertain the
"manner and time in which claims in respect of German enemy debts are to be put forward, and the furnishing and verification of information in connection with any such claims, including the production of books and documents;
(d) The determination, as respects any such claim of the question whether"—
mark these words—
"the claim is established for the purposes of the Order and of the amount of the claim."
Like others, I make mistakes, and I have often made them in my lifetime, but I am a little surprised to find that the true construction of this—notwithstanding the words to which I have referred—is that the administrator has not to ascertain the amounts of the claims. I quite agree with a great deal my noble friend opposite has said with regard to this sort of claim, and it is true that it may be a claim to recover only 10 per cent. But there may be people, as, for example, the beneficiary in the case to which I

1481
referred, who are entitled to a claim against enemy property of £500,000, and those persons may be met by the Ministry saying: "Well, we think your claim is bad, because this Will is illegal or there is a clause in it which deprives you from having a penny." It would appear very singular to me if the Government intended that man to be finally defeated because the administrator, who before had never tried a case in his life or never had to construe a Will, should be entitled to say, "On my reading of the Act, you are not entitled to anything." Does that not seem rather strange?
I can understand that if the advice Given to my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is right, these people are not entitled to anything, and that anything they do get is ex gratia. If that is the position, I fully understand the view he has put before us. Had I known his view I should have been able to understand something which, when he was speaking, I did not understand. Therefore I content myself with saying that I now follow a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I hope this Bill will be a success, and that people who are going to have a claim under it will feel that they are being treated with justice. At the same time, I cannot feel it is right if the settlement of these claims—which may in some cases be a matter of life or death to the claimant—is left to be determined by someone who is not a lawyer at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to add to subsection (6):
"and in giving such direction the Board of Trade shall have special regard to cases in which the circumstances are such as to make it unreasonable or unfair to deprive the person above referred to of such property or to treat the property as affected with the consequences otherwise attaching to German enemy property."
The noble Marquess said: I can put quite briefly what I have in mind. On the Second Reading I raised the question of the various people who might on any view of fairness of the situation be entitled to special treatment in the way of exgratia payment. What is puzzling me a little—and this is why I put down what is admittedly an exploratory Amendment, in the sense that I want
1482
information—is, what is the position when there will be an Act of Parliament regulating the matter? Does the situation obtain after that Act comes into force? In other words can you, somewhat airily, under various agreements made in Paris, Brussels and other places, over the past years, say you are going to give ex-gratia payments to certain types of people if you have no power in the Bill which entitles you to deal with the matter in that way? I shall be glad to hear something on that point from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words. —(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Marquess said that this is only an exploratory Amendment. I was hoping, when I said I should have to resist it, that he would not take that as an indication that I was in any way unsympathetic. I think we on this side of the House expressed our sympathy with what the noble Marquess seeks to do when this matter was discussed on Second Reading. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will not charge me with being unsympathetic. If the noble Marquess will look at Clause 1, subsection (6) I think he will see the answer. The subsection runs as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Board of Trade may give a direction to the administrator requiring him to transfer to or for the benefit of any person specified in the direction any German enemy property, or the proceeds of any German enemy property, to which that person would have been entitled.…"
That gives the same power under this Bill as exists at the present time. The rules governing the treatment will be the same rules as heretofore. I hope that perhaps the treatment will be even more generous than in the past. There is a further point which I should like to mention. Twenty million dollars, of which our share was over 5,000,000, have already been paid under the Paris agreement—that is, the agreement between the eighteen countries—in respect of the alleviation of distress of victims of Nazi oppression. So I do not think that anybody—least of all, I am sure, the noble Marquess—would charge this country with not having done what it can. I hope that in view of what I have said

1483
as to where the power lies, the noble Marquess will withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As I said, my Amendment was an exploratory one. I think the noble Lord has carried it a little further, but I do not propose to take any further action except to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"() Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to, or was held or managed on behalf of, a German company, and it appears to the Board of Trade that the company was on the said day controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United Kingdom company, the Board may treat that property for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, to such extent as the Board think fit having regard to the extent of the interest of the United Kingdom company in the German company, as property to which the United Kingdom company would have been entitled but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or any order made thereunder.
In this subsection, the expression 'German company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, Germany, and the expression 'United Kingdom company' means a body incorporated in, or under the laws of, the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment which I foreshadowed on the Second Reading. Noble Lords will remember that I said we were very impressed with some of the contentions put forward then, that to treat as German enemy property the property of German companies wholly or partly owned by British companies was inequitable, contrary to the theory that the burden of reparations ought to fall on German and not on Allied nationals, and likely to jeopardise the recognition of the principle that a British controlling interest of a foreign company should be safeguarded. This Amendment is put down to rectify that position. We agree with the arguments referring to capital assets and the Government view is that this Amendment should be applied only to capital assets. I cannot agree that the same case has been made out for trade debts, but I do not want to argue that to-night. The Amendment itself refers to "any German enemy property." It does not discriminate in terms between the capital assets of a
1484
German company and its trade debts. Under its terms the Board of Trade would have sufficient powers to enable a direction to the administrator to be appropriately confined in any particular case, if necessary, or to direct the release of the lot. I think this is one of the cases on which we should invite and receive the advice of the advisory committee. I hope that this explanation will satisfy your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sure we shall be glad to add this to the Bill. If your Lordships will turn to page 7, line 32, of the Bill you will find that the word "property" in the Bill means:
"…any money, any negotiable instrument, debt or other chose in action,…"
Therefore, as the noble Lord's Amendment stands, "property" does include debts. But I should like to ask whether it is thought proper to have these matters decided by a Department, with a large discretion, and to give them power to act like a character in the Bible who found himself in some doubt as to what the amount should be and said:
"…sit down quickly, and write fifty."
The other point that occurs to me is that the argument which the noble Lord used earlier—that it was not needed because subsection (6) of Clause 1 covered the case—would, I should have thought, equally apply to the present Amendment. That does not mean that I am not pleased to see it in the Bill because anything which is definitely stated in the Bill is an advantage all round.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have put down a Manuscript Amendment dealing with a point that I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill—that is, the question of the position of British women who become German by their marriage and subsequently regain their British nationality. I do not want to go into this question at any length. I have given the noble Lord opposite full particulars of the case which came to my notice. Briefly, it was this. A certain Englishwoman had married a German before the First World War. At the conclusion of the Second World War, she

1485
was still German and she had a certain amount of money which was paid to her regularly by trustees in England. That money naturally ceased at the beginning of the Second World War. The income was paid to the Custodian of Enemy Property and she has received nothing since. Since then, this woman has become a British subject by re-naturalisation, and yet has not yet received any sum from the Custodian of Enemy Property, although she has in her possession a certificate of re-naturalisation. That is the general position which seems to me to bear hardly on the woman in question. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment in the hope of elucidating some information from the noble Lord which will clear up a case which appears to me to need a solution.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert:
("() Where any German enemy property, on or at any time after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, belonged to an individual born in British territory who became a German national by marriage, but who has become a British subject by renaturalisation, the Board of Trade shall give a direction to the Administrator requiring him to transfer to such individual any of his property which would otherwise be treated as German enemy property."—(Earl of Munster.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for giving me prior notice of this Amendment, which he did with his usual courtesy. I can give him a short and (I hope) a satisfactory answer. Dealing with the particular case which he has cited as an example of what the Amendment is intended to cover, it appears that this woman had been living in Germany from the date he mentioned, from the First World War, and that she recently had acquired British nationality. If she does one thing now, it will conform with the Rules of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency, which cover this particular point—that is, take up her residence in the country of the nationality she now desires to have. She has to-day a dual nationality—a German nationality by her marriage and a British nationality by her altered status under the Act. These Rules apply to the assets of any individual of German nationality. Rule 6 (g) (3) refers to a person
"who has left Germany (or if he has not left Germany at the final accounting under the Paris Agreement, it is proved that he intends
1486
to leave Germany within a reasonable time thereafter) to establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country."
So that, if this woman establishes her permanent address in this country, we shall be only too ready to release her property, but we cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment because it contravenes our obligation under the Paris Agreement, which prevents us from returning German enemy property to German ownership and control. The reacquisition of British nationality does not divest people of their German nationality which they acquired by reason of their marriage to German nationals. Under the Act, the master nationality of these particular persons is the nationality of the country where they decide to take up their permanent residence. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not quite clear as to the condition that the noble Lord is seeking to impose. Taking the particular case raised by the noble Earl is he saying that this lady can receive her money only if she lives in this country for the rest of her life? Because that seems to me imposing rather a strange penalty upon somebody. If the noble Lord had said something about a qualifying period I could understand it, but her receipt of this money must be coterminous with her residence in this country. That seems to be taking the matter very far. Under the exchange control, I can understand his saying that she cannot go to a hard-currency country, but to say that she must stay indefinitely in this country is rather a startling proposition.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Marquess is a learned lawyer. I am not. How to construe "permanent residence" and whether it means having an address or a property in this country, the noble Marquess would know better than I. But the Rule says:
"establish his permanent residence in that I.A.R.A. country."
That is the Rule to which we are adhering. I speak with reserve on the subject, but whatever advice I may receive on this point, I should not think it would be so harshly interpreted as the noble Marquess has suggested—that nobody could ever leave this country, even for a holiday or for a tour round the world for twelve months.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am not querying "for a holiday," but the fact that it has to be her place of residence for the rest of her life.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think that is what it means. That is what it says.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Or when she is dead.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think that is very hard.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord said that his reply to my Amendment would be short. It has been short, but it has not been satisfactory. When is this poor lady going to receive any income at all? Although she has now become a British subject, she is to receive none of the income which was due to her and was paid to her regularly up to the outbreak of this last war until she takes up permanent residence in this country. When is the income going to be paid to her? Will it begin from the day that she sets foot in this country and can prove a permanent residence? Will she get the income for the last two or three years when she was a British subject? I think that we might have a little further explanation of this. The noble Lord said that she had to take up permanent residence. Did I understand him to say in one of the I.A.R.A. countries?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; in the I.A.R.A. country where she desires to have that nationality.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: So she takes up residence in this country as a British subject, but is prohibited from going to live in any other portion of the British Empire or Commonwealth. Is that the proposal? It seems to me to be a most fantastic arrangement. I would like some further explanation before I withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can give the noble Earl no further information on this point. I have done my best to acquire information during the course of the last four or five hours, but I did not have notice of this Manuscript Amendment until I came into the House this afternoon. Between then and the time of the opening of these proceedings I do not think I have done too badly.
1488
If the noble Earl wants any further information perhaps he would apply to the Board of Trade. They can then say when the payments will be made. It may be that the Custodian has had this income or the proceeds of any investment from which it is derived since the 1914–18 war, I have a note here which I am sorry to say I cannot read. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can assist me. I can only tell the noble Earl that if he or this lady will go to the Board of Trade, the latter will be only too willing to help by giving any information they can. I cannot go any further than that. Those are the I.A.R.A. Rules to which I am bound, and by which we agreed with eighteen other nations at Paris to be bound. The legal and literal interpretation of "permanent residence" I do not know. I think the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the only permanent residence she could possibly have—namely, when she is dead.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That was a joke.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I took it as being a joke and I am repeating it as such, because I do not know what is the definition. I should have thought that "permanent residence" meant that she had an address here. I hesitate to put the words into the noble and learned Viscount's mind, but it may be satisfactory if she has a permanent residence sufficient to qualify her to pay income tax. I suppose she could then, so long as she had this residence here, be free to roam the world at her leisure and pleasure. I cannot think of anything else.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Lord is getting into rather deep water if he propounds from the Government Bench the proposition that nobody pays income tax in this country unless he has permanent residence. I think he will find some trouble arising from that, because that is not the case. People who reside here much less permanently find themselves caught with income tax, even if they cone here for only six months. Anyway, we had better not go into all that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, that if a British wife who has resumed British nationality comes home,

1489
and acquires permanent residence in any one of the Dominions, she is treated exactly in the same way as if she acquired permanent residence here?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I apologise for pressing this question so hard, but it seemed to be a question requiring some explanation. I apologise to the Committee for delaying them and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
("The Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 is hereby repealed and any Order-in-Council made under it is cancelled and no charge imposed or purported or sought to be imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 or by any Order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to German nationals within the meaning of such an Act or Order and not already enforced shall, after the commencement of this Act, be enforced or have any effect.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: I will not detain the Committee for more than a couple of minutes. My attention was called to a recent decision by a Chancery Judge in the construction and application of a will which certainly seemed to have a very serious result, though I am not saying he was not right. If I understood it rightly, he determined that a will could not be construed in accordance with what undoubtedly was intended by the testator, so that an interest which had now sprung up could be satisfied, because that interest was not free to be disposed of as long as the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and Orders in Council made under it, remained the law. The year 1919 is now a long way off and I had rather supposed, perhaps wrongly, that the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, had worked itself out by this time. If it has not, it would be interesting to know how much longer it is expected to go on, because the people who were disappointed in their application felt that it was rather hard that they should be caught at present by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, and any Order in Council made thereunder. I merely mention this point, and formally move the Amend-
1490
ment. I will not press it. I merely ask for information, and I am sure that the explanation which the noble Lord furnishes will be as satisfactory as all the others that he has given us to-day.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So far as the noble and learned Viscount is concerned, my reply is going to be even more satisfactory than he could ever hope for. We are going to express to the noble and learned Viscount our grateful thanks for having drawn attention to something that does need rectifying. We think he has performed a public service in putting this Amendment down. That, I feel, is an opening which he at least will appreciate. But if the noble and learned Viscount looks at his Amendment, he will see that it sweeps in a lot of things which I feel sure he would not wish to be swept in. Therefore, I am going to give him an undertaking, that in view of what he has said, the Law Officers of the Crown and other interested parties will look into this matter. It will be thoroughly studied with a view to proceeding somewhat upon the lines which the noble and learned Viscount wishes. Similar Acts and orders are in existence with regard to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, and any general review of the situation will deal with those cases at the same time. Again, I express gratitude on behalf of the Government to the noble and learned Viscount, and I feel sure he will be satisfied with that assurance and will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I cannot do more than express my extreme gratification. I tentatively dangled this fly on the water without much expectation, but I seem to have caught something. I hope that something will be done in addition to the pleasant observations just made by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [interpretation]:
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in the definition of "German enemy property" immediately before the words "belonged

1491
to" to insert "beneficially." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is only a drafting Amendment. I think by construction the sentence probably means "beneficially." As a matter of fact, at page 6, line 28, the draftsman has put in the words "beneficial ownership." In both cases the more accurate term should be put in when it is meant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("beneficially").—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment. I have studied this matter carefully, and I can give the reasons for not accepting the Amendment lengthily or shortly. I know the Committee would like them shortly. May I put them in three very short sentences? The Amendment would have the effect of preventing such property being treated as German enemy property for the purposes of the Bill but it would do nothing to free it from the restrictions of trading with the enemy legislation. That is our first objection. Our second objection is that, as drafted, the Amendment could not be made to work. It would place on the administrator the onus of deciding whether or not property was beneficially owned by Germans or by other people. The initiative must come from persons interested in the property. Finally, the problem of the disposal of property which is nominally German, beneficially non-German, is, in any event, one which can be satisfactorily settled only by administrative action on a case by case basis. In view of those considerations, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will not press it. I beg leave it withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but there are certain points which I wish to raise upon Clause 8. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas will, I hope, forgive me when I say that, when all is said and done, this Bill has been rushed through your Lordships' House. There are a large number
1492
of highly technical and difficult questions on which we should like further explanation. I need not enumerate them all. I will mention only two which come up on Clause 8. The first concerns external loans—the Young loan, the Dawes loan and the Austrian loan. Are they included? Then what is the position with regard to bearer bonds of German and industrial commercial concerns, which are not covered in this clause? Another point on which I ask for information is the question of proving the ownership of bearer bonds. It seems to me that with these going back, as they do, over a period of ten years, it may be an immensely difficult and complicated task. I regret that it was not possible in the very short time available to put other Amendments down to deal with these two specific matters. If it is not worrying the noble Lord too much, I shall be very grateful if he can explain these matters quite briefly, or say something which will enlighten me on those particular points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl will look at Clause 8 (1) (a) he will see that these matters are covered there. It says that the obligation must be an obligation to any of the following persons:
"….

(iv) His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;

(v) any British subject or British protected person resident or carrying on business on that day in the United Kingdom;

(vi) any body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate) which on that day was a body incorporated or constituted under the laws in force in the United Kingdom."

Debts in such cases are included there. It also covers the bonds which the noble Earl mentioned—there are the non-Reich bonds such as for example, the City of Hamburg Bonds. They are included there. If the bonds were held upon September 3, 1939, by (1) His Majesty's Government or, (2) British subjects or British-protected persons resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom or (3) United Kingdom companies or concerns, again they are included. The noble Earl asked me how we were going to recognise them. That is a matter which presents some difficulty. We are going to ask the advice of the advisory committee. There are various channels through which in-

1493
quiries may be made. We may ask whether the bonds satisfied the exchange control procedure, for example. If we cannot get the information from bank records, there may be one or two other sources of information that will help us to give reasonable assurance that they can all be identified and the matter put on a proper basis. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 8), the Amendment reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill No. 45]
In the Title, line 6, leave out ("in Scotland")
In the Title, line 10, after ("institutions") insert ("in Scotland")
In the Title, line 11, leave out ("in Scotland") and insert ("to make certain consequential amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948").
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Probation orders relating to persons residing in England
("(1) Where the court by which a probation order is made under section two of this Act is satisfied that the offender resides or will reside in England, subsection 12) of the said section shall not apply to the order, but the order shall contain a requirement that he be under the supervision of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division in which the offender resides or will reside; and that division shall be named in the order.
(2) Where a probation order has been made under section two of this Act and the court in Scotland by which the order was made or the appropriate court is satisfied that the probationer proposes to reside or is residing in England, the power of that court to amend the order under the Second Schedule to this Act shall include power to omit therefrom the name of the probation officer named therein and to insert the provisions required by subsection (1) of this section; and the court may so amend the order without summoning the probationer and without his consent.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the fore going provisions of this Part of this Act an order as made or amended under this section shall not require the offender to reside in any institution, or to submit to treatment for his mental condition, but without prejudice to any power of a court in England to impose any such requirements under the next following subsection.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) of section four and subsection (1) of section five of this Act shall not apply to any order made or amended under this section; but subject as hereinafter provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (except section eight of that Act) shall apply to the order as if it were a probation order made under section three of that Act:
Provided that in the application to any such order of section six of the said Act (which relates to breach of a requirement of a probation order) paragraph (a) of subsection (2), paragraph (a) of subsection (3) and paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of that section shall not apply, and paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of that section shall have effect as if for references therein to a court of assize or quarter sessions and the court of assize or quarter sessions there were substituted references to a court in Scotland and to the court in Scotland by which the probation order was made or amended under this section.
(5) If it appears on information to a justice acting for the petty sessional division or place for which the supervising court (as defined in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948) acts that a person in whose case a probation order has been made or amended under this section has been convicted by a court in any part of Great Britain of an offence committed during the period specified in the order, he may issue a summons requiring that person to appear, at the place and time specified therein, before the court in Scotland by which the probation order was made or, if the information is in writing and on oath, may issue a warrant for his arrest, directing that person to be brought before the last-mentioned court.
(6) If a warrant for the arrest of a probationer issued under section six of this Act by a court is executed in England, and the probationer cannot forthwith be brought before that court. the warrant shall have effect as if it directed him to be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction for the place where he is arrested; and the court of summary jurisdiction shall commit him to custody or release him on bail (with or without sureties) until he can be brought or appear before the court in Scotland.
(7) The court by which a probation order is made or amended in accordance with the provisions of this section shall send three copies of the order to the clerk to the justices for the petty sessional division named therein, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to the court acting for that petty sessional division.
(8) Where a probation order which is amended under subsection (2) of this section is an order to which the provisions of this Act apply by virtue of section nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which relates to probation orders under that Act relating to persons residing in Scotland), then, notwithstanding anything in that section or this section, the order shall, as from the date of the amendment, have effect in all respects as if it were an order made under section three of that Act in the case of a person residing in England.")
Clause 10, page 9, line 42, after ("functions") insert ("remuneration").
Clause 20, page 14, line 13, after ("released") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act")
Clause 20, page 14, line 32, after ("released") insert ("in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act ")
Clause 20, page 14, line 35, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions that an offence is punishable on indictment in England with imprisonment for a term of two years or more shall be sufficient evidence of the matter so certified.")
Clause 20, page 14, line 38, leave out ("on licence")
after ("with") insert ("rules made under subsection (6) of section forty-nine of this Act or")
Clause 20, page 14, line 41, leave out ("section forty-nine of this Act") and insert ("that section").
Clause 22, page 16, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) Where a sheriff is satisfied on the evidence of two registered medical practitioners approved for the purpose by the General Board of Control for Scotland that a person detained under an order made under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection is in a state threatening danger to the lieges or offensive to public decency and cannot be suitably cared for in a mental hospital the sheriff shall make an order that he be removed to and received and detained in such State Mental Hospital as may be named in the order, and the first-mentioned order shall cease to have effect.")
page 17, line 1, after ("subsection") insert ("or under the last foregoing subsection").
Clause 23, page 17, line 33, after ("court") insert ("of Justiciary").
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Change in procedure in the case of mental defectives undergoing imprisonment, &c.
("The following section shall be substituted for section ten of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913—
'(10) Where a sheriff on an application by the Secretary of State is satisfied on the evidence of two registered medical practitioners one of whom shall be a medical practitioner approved for the purpose by the General Board of Control for Scotland that a person who is detained (otherwise than while awaiting trial or sentence or under civil process) in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital, is a defective, the sheriff may make an order

(a) that he be transferred therefrom and sent to such institution for defectives as may be named in the order; or

(b) that he be placed under guardianship;

and any order so made shall have the like effect as a judicial order under this Act.'")
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction and procedure in respect of certain indictable offences committed abroad
("(1) Any British subject who in a country outside the United Kingdom does any act or makes any omission which if done or made in Scotland would constitute the crime of murder or of culpable homicide shall be guilty of the same crime and subject to the same punishment as if the act or omission had been done or made in Scotland.
(2) Any British subject employed under His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the service of the Crown who, in a foreign country, when acting or purporting to act in the course of his employment, does any act or makes any omission which if done or made in Scotland would constitute an offence punishable on indictment shall be guilty of the same offence, and subject to the same punishment, as if the act or omission had been done or made in Scotland.
(3) A person may he proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished for an offence under this section in any county or place in Scotland in which he is apprehended or is in custody as if the offence had been committed in that county or place; and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.")
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
Payment by instalments of fines imposed on conviction on indictment
("(1) Where a court imposes a fine on a person convicted on indictment, the court may, either at the same or at any subsequent time, order payment of the fine by instalments of such amounts, and at such times, as it may

1497
think fit, and where any instalment is not paid at the time so ordered, that person shall be liable to imprisonment for such period as bears to the period specified in default of payment of the fine the same proportion, as nearly as may be, as the sum of the unpaid instalments bears to the total amount of the fine.
(2) Where in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection a person is imprisoned in default of payment of any instalment of a fine, and there is paid to the governor of the prison in which the said person is imprisoned a sum in part satisfaction of the sum of the unpaid instalments of the said fine, the term of imprisonment of the said person shall be reduced by a number of days bearing as nearly as possible the same proportion to the total number of days for which he was sentenced as the sum so paid bears to the sum for which he is liable.
(3) Where a court has imposed a fine on a person convicted on indictment and has ordered payment of the fine by instalments in accordance with the terms of subsection (1) of this section, the court may at any time before imprisonment has followed on the sentence, without requiring the attendance of the accused, reduce the amount, or allow further time for the payment, of any instalment (whether the time for payment thereof has or has not expired), or order payment of the fine, so far as unpaid, by instalments of smaller amounts or at longer intervals than originally ordered.
(4) The High Court of Justiciary may by Act of Adjournal regulate the procedure to be followed in cases arising under this section.")
Clause 35, page 24, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("under") and insert—
("Any conviction which is admitted in evidence by the court.")
Clause 36, page 25, line 20, leave out subsection (6), and insert— ("(6) Nothing contained in section twenty-eight or twenty-nine of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, shall require a plea tendered by or on behalf of a company to be signed.")
Clause 38, page 26, line 30, leave out ("by") and insert ("purporting to be signed by or on behalf of")
Clause 42, page 27, line 34, at end insert—
("(6) Nothing herein contained shall prevent evidence of previous convictions being led in any case where such evidence is competent in support of a substantive charge.")
Clause 49, page 31, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) Rules made under this section may provide for the appointment of a convenient prison or prisons—

(a) in which prisoners are to he confined before and during trial, or at either of such times;

(b) in which particular classes of prisoners may be confined;

(c) in which civil prisoners may be confined during the period of their imprisonment.")

page 32, line 15, leave out ("on licence")
Clause 49, page 32, line 16, leave out ("or detained in a Borstal institution") and insert (", corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training")
Clause 53, page 34, line 8, leave out from ("to") to end of line 10, and insert ("compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine")
Clause 57, page 35, line 44, after ("place") insert ("in Great Britain")
line 45, after ("detained") insert ("in Scotland")
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Removal of prisoners &c., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands
("(1) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention or Borstal training, order his removal to a prison or Borstal institution in England; and any person so removed may be detained, released, recalled and otherwise dealt with as if he had been sentenced by a court in England and as if his sentence were one which could be imposed by such a court.
(2) Any person sentenced, under the law for the time being in force, by any court in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to penal servitude, imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, detention in a Borstal institution, Borstal training or detention in a detention centre may, if the Secretary of State so orders, be removed to a prison, Borstal institution or detention centre, as the case may be, in Scotland.
(3) Any person ordered to be removed under the last foregoing subsection, and any person sentenced by a court in England who, under any enactment extending to England, is ordered to be removed to a prison or Borstal institution in Scotland, may be detained, released, recalled and otherwise dealt with as if his sentence had been passed by a court in Scotland and as if his sentence were one which could be imposed by such a court:
Provided that—

(a) where a person so removed was undergoing or liable to undergo a term of penal servitude, he shall, be treated as if that term were a term of imprisonment;

(b) where a person so removed was sentenced to detention in a Borstal institution he shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to Borstal training under this Act.

(4) Any person removed under this section from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to a prison or Borstal institution in Scotland may, on his release under the provisions of the Fourth or Fifth Schedule to this Act or under section fifty-two of this Act, as the case may be, be placed under supervision in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, as the case may be, and those provisions (including the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act), shall apply to him therein; and if any person so released is recalled under the provisions aforesaid, he may, if in the Isle of Man or the

1499
Channel Islands, be arrested without warrant and removed to Scotland for the purpose of being taken to a prison or Borstal institution as the case may be.
(5) The provisions of the Schedule (Provisions relating to persons in England after discharge from prisons, &c., in Scotland) to this Act shall have effect in relation to persons for the time being in England who have been discharged from prisons and other institutions in Scotland (including persons who, before being so discharged, had been removed to such institutions under any enactment extending to England).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person sentenced to death by a court in England or in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands who has been pardoned by His Majesty on condition that he serves a term of penal servitude or imprisonment shall be deemed to have been sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment by that court.")
Clause 59, page 37, line 2, after ("place,") insert ("in Great Britain")
Clause 59, page 37, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a state mental patient or a relation of the patient, order the patient's removal from a mental hospital in Scotland to a mental hospital in England; and any patient so removed shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had been sentenced or ordered to be detained or otherwise committed to custody, as the case may be, by a court in England.")
Clause 60, page 38, line 23, after ("warrant") insert ("in any part of Great Britain")
Clause 59, page 37, line 39, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (6) of section forty-nine of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large if the period for which he was temporarily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the rules.")
Clause 67, page 43, line 5, after ("1937.") insert ("or under section thirty-eight of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946")
Clause 67, page 43, page 44, line 3, leave out ("(2) and (4)") and insert ("(3) and (5)")
Clause 70, page 47, line 42, after ("Act") insert ("(including any sums so received under arrangements made with respect to the cost of removing and maintaining persons removed from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands to institutions in Scotland under section (Removal of prisoners, etc., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands) of this Act)")
Clause 73, page 50, line 8, at end insert—
("(7) References in the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, to a general or special rule shall be construed as references to a rule made under section forty-nine of this Act.")
Clause 74, page 50 line 10, after ("and") insert ("save as otherwise expressly provided")
Second Schedule, page 51, line 30, leave out from beginning, to end of line 32, and insert—
("1. A probation order may on the application of the probation officer or of the probationer be discharged—

(a) by the appropriate court, or

(b) if no appropriate court has been named in the original or in any amending order, by the court which made the order.")

Clause 74, page 53, line 13, after ("institution") insert ("or place")
Clause 74, page 54, line 6, after ("institution") insert ("or place")
Third Schedule, page 56, line 9, after ("committee") insert ("under the Local Government Act, 1948, or")
Fourth Schedule, page 58, line 14, after ("sentenced") insert ("by a court in any part of Great Britain")
Sixth Schedule, page 60, line 24, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Clause 74, line 31, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Clause 74, line 38, after ("be") insert ("sufficient")
Seventh Schedule, page 62, line 6, after ("convictions") insert ("applying to you")
line 21, at end insert ("applying to you")
After the Eighth Schedule insert the following new Schedule:
("PROVISIONS RELATING TO PERSONS IN ENGLAND AFTER DISCHARGE FROM PRISONS, ETC., IN SCOTLAND

1. Where any person serving a term of imprisonment for life has been released on licence under subsection (1) of section fifty-three of this Act, he may be recalled under subsection (2) of that section notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such persons, while in England, the said subsection (2) shall extend to England accordingly.

2. Where any person sentenced to Borstal training under this Act, or who is required by virtue of any enactment to be treated as if he had been so sentenced, is released from a Borstal institution, he shall continue to be under supervision, and may be recalled, in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule (other than paragraph 1 thereof) shall extend to England accordingly.

3. Where any person sentenced under this Act to corrective training or preventive detention or required by virtue of section (Removal of prisoners etc., to and from England and from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands) of this Act to be treated as if he had been so sentenced, is released on licence under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, any requirements of the licence shall continue in force, and he may be recalled under the said

1501
Fifth Schedule, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule (except paragraph 1 thereof) shall extend to England accordingly.

4. Where any person serving a sentence of imprisonment is released on licence under subsection (2) of section fifty-two of this Act, he shall continue to be under supervision, and may be recalled, in accordance with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that Schedule shall extend to England accordingly.

5. Where, under section twenty-one of this Act, any person convicted of an offence is ordered to be subject to the provisions of that section, he shall remain so subject notwithstanding that he is for the time being in England; and in relation to any such person, while in England, the provisions of that section and of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall extend to England accordingly.")

Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 1, leave out ("any court") and insert ("a court in any part of Great Britain")
Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 4, after ("granted") insert ("in any part of Great Britain")
Ninth Schedule, page 64, line 14, at end insert—
("(3) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-three of this Act, the Secretary of Stale may, without recalling him to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, a licence under the said section fifty-three.")
Tenth Schedule, page 66, line 22, at end insert—
("The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877 40 & 41 Viet. c. 53
In section twenty-eight the words from 'may from time to time' to 'convicted criminal prisoners, and' shall cease to have effect.
Sections thirty-seven, forty-eight to fifty and fifty-two shall be omitted.
In section seventy-one for the definition of the expression 'burgh' the following definition shall be substituted 'Burgh shall have the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.'")
Page 67, line 18, leave out from ("five") to end of line 30, and insert ("for the words from '(a) under an order' to `inebriate reformatory' there shall be substituted the words under an order made by the sheriff

(a) on a petition presented under this Act (hereinafter referred to as a judicial order); or

(b) in pursuance of section ten of this Act in the case of a defective detained in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital.'")

After the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("In section seventeen, in subsection (1), the words 'or the Secretary for Scotland,' shall be omitted:
In section thirty-three, in subsection (2), the words from 'or, to the end of the sub-section shall be omitted:
In section thirty-four, for subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(2) Where the order is made in pursuance of section ten of this Act

(a) if the order is in respect of a person detained in a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Acts, 1860 to 1926, apply, or in a remand home, or in an inebriate reformatory or who is detained in a State Mental Hospital that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing section be presumed to have resided in the place where the offence was, or was alleged to have been, committed, unless it be proved that he resided in some other place;

(b) if the order is in respect of a person in a school approved under section eighty-three of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, that person shall for the purposes of the foregoing section be deemed to have resided in the place (if any) determined to have been his place of residence for the purposes of his committal to such school.'")

Leave out lines 31 to 46.
Page 71, line 38, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice Act, 1948. 11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 58
For section nine there shall be substituted the following section—
'Probation orders relating to persons residing in Scotland.
9.—(1) Where the court by which a probation order is made under section three of this Act is satisfied that the offender resides or will reside in Scotland, subsection (2) of that section shall not apply to the order, but the order shall specify as the appropriate court for the purposes of this section a court of summary jurisdiction (which in the case of an offender convicted on indictment, shall be the sheriff court) having jurisdiction in the place in Scotland in which the offender resides or will reside.
(2) Where a probation order has been made under section three of this Act and the supervising court is satisfied that the probationer proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland, the power of that court to amend the order under the First Schedule to this Act shall include power to amend it by substituting for the provisions required by subsection (2) of the said section three the provisions required by subsection (1) of this section; and the court may so amend the order without summoning the probationer and without his consent.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, an order as made or amended under this section shall not require the offender to reside in any institution, or to submit to treatment for his mental condition, but without prejudice to any power of a court in Scotland to impose any such requirement under the next following subsection.
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) of section five and subsections (1) and (2) of section six of this Act shall not apply to any order made or amended under this section; but the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949 (except paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section five and section six of that Act), shall apply to the order as if it were a probation order made under section two of that Act and as if the court specified in the order as the appropriate court had been named as such under subsection (2) of that section.
(5) If in the case of a probation order made or amended under this section the appropriate court (as defined by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949) is satisfied that the probationer has failed to comply with any requirement of the probation order, the court may, instead of dealing with him in any manner authorised by the said Act, commit him to custody or release him on bail until he can be brought or appear before the court in England by which the probation order was made, and, if it so commits him or releases him on bail.—

(a) the court shall send to the said court in England a certificate certifying that the probationer has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the probation order as may he specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable;

(b) that court shall have the same powers as if the probationer had been brought or appeared before it in pursuance of a warrant or summons issued under subsection (1) of section six of this Act;

and a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the appropriate court shall be admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the probation order.
(6) In relation to a probation order made or amended under this section, the appropriate court (as defined by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949) shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of subsection (1) of section eight of this Act; and paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (3) of that section shall not apply to any summons or warrant issued under that section by that court.
(7) The court by which a probation order is made or amended under this section shall send three copies of the order as made or amended to the clerk of the court specified in the order as the appropriate court, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court; and subsection (6) of section three of this Act, or paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to this Act, as the case may be, shall not apply to any such order.
(8) Where a probation order which is amended under subsection (2) of this section is an order to which the provisions of this Act apply by virtue of section seven of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949 (which relates to probation orders under that Act relating to persons residing in England), then, notwithstanding anything in that section or this section, the order shall, as from the date of the amendment, have effect in all respects as if it were an order made under section two of that Act in the case of a person residing in Scotland, and as if the court specified as the appropriate court in the order as so amended had been named as such under subsection (2) of the said section two.'")
Page 71, column 2, after the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("In section twenty-three, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
'(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-one of this Act a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate that an offence is punishable on indictment in Scotland with imprisonment for a term of two years or more shall be evidence of the matter so certified.'")
Page 71, column 2, after the Amendment last inserted, insert—
("At the end of section fifty-two there shall be added the following subsection—
'(5) Rules made under this section may provide for the temporary release of persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training.'
In section fifty-seven, in subsection (1), for the words from 'subject to such conditions' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.'
In section sixty-one, in subsection (5), for the words from 'The provisions of Part I' to 'that Schedule' there shall be substituted 'The provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act.'
At the end of section sixty-five there shall be added the following subsection—
'(4) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (5) of section fifty-two of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to he unlawfully at large if the period for which he was temporarily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Prison Commissioners in pursuance of the rules.'
In the Eighth Schedule, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1, there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
`(2A) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing subparagraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-seven of this Act, the Secretary of State may, without recalling him

1505
to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, a licence under the said section fifty-seven.'")
Eleventh Schedule, page 72, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 21 to end of line 23, and insert—
("Section six.
In section ten, the words 'and enforcement of hard labour.'
Sections fourteen, fifteen, twenty-seven.
In section twenty-eight, the words from 'may from time to time' to convicted criminal prisoners, and.'
Sections twenty-nine, thirty-seven, forty-four to fifty, fifty-two, fifty-eight and sixty-four.")
Page 75, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section ten")
Page 75, line 15, column 3, leave out from ("(4)") to end of line 17, and insert ("section eighty-one so far as it relates to sections ten and seventy-one")
line 17, column 3, after the words last inserted, insert ("Part I of the Seventh Schedule.")
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. In doing so may I say briefly that many of these Amendments, including four of the six new clauses and Schedules, introduce into the Bill provisions applying beyond Scotland. These machinery provisions deal with the position of Scottish probationers who move to England and English probationers who come to live in Scotland. They provide for the movement of prisoners and State mental patients between Scotland and other parts of Great Britain; enable the Secretary of State to require prisoners discharged in Scotland to report to the police in England, if they go to live there; and authorise the trial in Scotland of persons charged with certain indictable offences committed in foreign countries. The remaining Amendments introduce a number of improvements of detail into the Bill. I can assure the House that no point of controversy arises. I will be guided by the wishes of the House as to whether I may be permitted to move the Amendments clause by clause or en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, may I say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we agree with all the Amendments?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill 179 as first printed fog the House of Commons]
Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out front beginning to ("and") and insert ("each area as hereinafter defined")
Clause 2, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
("(4) In this section the expression "area" means a hospital area:
Provided that the Secretary of State may by order direct that an area consisting of two or more hospital areas shall be an area for the purposes of this section.").
Clause 7, page 5, line 25 leave out from ("consider") to end of line, and insert ("all such matters and report upon them")
Clause 7, page 5, line 26, leave out third ("the") and insert ("any such").
Clause 14, page 9, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Clause 14, page 9, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Clause 14, page 9, line 26, leave out ("respectively").
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Penalisation of acts falsely implying inclusion in the list
(". Any person who, not being a person whose name is included in the list, takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that his name is so included shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first conviction ten pounds, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fifty pounds.").
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Membership of the Council, etc., not to involve Parliamentary disqualification
(". A member of the Council, the Assistant Nurses Committee, the Mental Nurses Committee, a regional nurse-training committee or a sub-committee of a regional nurse-training committee shall not, by reason of his membership, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting and voting, as a Member of the House of Commons.")
Clause 19, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
("' chief male nurse' means a male nurse in charge of the male nurses employed in a mental hospital")
Clause 19, page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("' prescribed' means prescribed by rules made by the Council under this Act")
First Schedule, page 12, line 45, leave out ("and")
page 13, line 4, at end insert ("and
(e) a person or persons with financial experience.")
Clause 19, page 10, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that the members first appointed under sub-paragraph (b) or sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall hold office for a term of three years")
Second Schedule, page 14, line 26, after ("payments") insert ("as may be specified in the order")
Clause 19, page 10, line 32, leave out from first ("be") to end of line 33.
Third Schedule, page 16, line 6, leave out from ("a") to ("such") in line 7, and insert ("chief male nurse of")
Clause 19, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
("Provided that

(i) a member of the committee appointed by the Council shall cease to hold office as such member if he ceases to be a member of the Council; and

(ii) the members of the committee first appointed by the Secretary of State shall hold office for a term of three years.")

Clause 19, page 10, line 22, leave out ("be filled")
Clause 19, page 10, line 23, after ("State") insert ("be filled by a person appointed")
Clause 19, page 10, line 24, after ("case") insert ("shall be filled by a person appointed")
Fourth Schedule, page 17, line 7, column 3, leave out from ("from") to ("referred") in line 8, and insert ("the date of the first coming into operation of such rules as are")
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in moving that this House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments may I say that the statement which I made just now concerning the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill applies equally to the Nurses (Scotland) Bill? No point of controversy arises. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, I can say that we have no objection to any of the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL
7.52 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments, and of Commons Amendments proposed in lieu of certain other of the Lords Amendments.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 124]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 3, page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 28 and insert—
("Subject to the following provisions of this section, any consent required by this section for the making of an adoption order may be given either before or after an application has been made for the order; but the consent of the mother of the infant shall be of no effect for the purposes of this section if given earlier than six weeks after the birth of the infant.
(3) Any consent given for the purposes of an application for an adoption order may be given (subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified therein with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) in respect of any order which may be made in pursuance of the application, and shall be valid notwithstanding that the identity of the applicant is not specified in the consent or known to the consenting party; and where a consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn")
Clause 19, page 10, line 30, leave out ("the last foregoing section") and insert ("this section")
line 31, at end insert—
("(4) Provision shall be made by rules under section eight of the principal Act for securing that any consent given by the mother of the infant for the purposes of this section otherwise than before the court which makes an adoption order shall be given in writing, in such form as may be prescribed by the rules, and signed, upon the date upon which it purports to be given, in the presence of a justice of the peace.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The consent of any person to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of an application may be given (either unconditionally or subject to conditions with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) without knowing the identity of the applicant for the order; and where consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn on the ground only that he does not know the identity of the applicant, his consent shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be unreasonably withheld.
(3) Where any person whose consent to the making of an adoption order is required by this section does not attend in the proceedings for the purpose of giving it, a document signifying his consent to the making of such an order shall, if the person in whose favour the order is to be made is named or otherwise described in the document, be admissible as evidence of that consent, whether the document is executed before or after the commencement of the proceedings; and where any such document is attested by a justice of the peace (or, if executed outside the United Kingdom, by a person of any such class as may be prescribed by rules made under the principal Act), the document shall be admissible as aforesaid without further proof of the signature of the person by whom it is executed:
Provided that a document signifying the consent of the mother of an infant shall not be admissible as aforesaid unless—

(a) the infant is at least six weeks old on the date of the execution of the document; and

(b) the document is attested on that date by a justice of the peace or, as the case may be, by a person of a class prescribed as aforesaid.

(4) While an application for an adoption order in respect of an infant is pending in any court, any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whether to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section a document purporting to be attested as mentioned in that subsection shall be deemed to be so attested, and to be executed and attested on the date and at the place specified therein, unless the contrary is proved.")
Page 9, line, 19, leave out front ("infant") to end of line 22 and insert—
("In subsection (2), after the word 'person' where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'other than the consent of an infant'; and in subsection (3), for the words `admissible as evidence' there shall be substituted the words `sufficient evidence' and for the words 'admissible as aforesaid' the words 'sufficient evidence as aforesaid.'")

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 14, page 9, line 22, at end insert ("and in subsection (4) for any reference to rules there shall be substituted a reference to an Act of Sederunt, and any reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff")
The Commons agree to the above Amendment, but propose the following Amendment thereto—
In line 1 of the Lords Amendment, leave out ("and in subsection (4)").
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I can dispose of what remains in this matter in a few minutes. Although the Commons Amendments in lieu of certain Amendments made in this House occupy more than two pages of print, they are, with one exception, nothing more than a recasting of what this House has already inserted in the Bill, and I have no doubt that the recasting is an improvement. As I took charge of the Bill in this House, it is enough for me to say that I hope your Lordships will accept the improved version, which no doubt has been drawn up with great care and skill and is much better than we were able to do in our amateur way in your Lordships' House.
There is one change, however, which is a change of substance. It is to be found on page 2 of the list of Commons Amendments. The proposed new subsection (4) provides that:
While an application for an adoption order in respect of an infant is pending in any court, any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whet her to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
That change is an attempt to find a compromise between two views, each of which have been followed by argument. For myself, and I think for all interested in the Bill, I am prepared to accept this proposal, and I would urge your Lordships to do the like. The effect of it is this. Thanks to this Bill, which I think is a great improvement on the present law, the mother of a child is not to be regarded as having indicated her consent to the child being adopted by others unless at least six weeks have elapsed since the birth of the child and unless, when she signs the document, it is attested by a justice of the peace and it is done in a proper form and at a

1511
proper date. That is a great reform. I am glad that this House was able to make it and that another place has accepted it.
But there is a difficulty of which we have all been conscious. Cases may arise where, after people adopting a child take the child into their custody, the mother withdraws the indication of her consent. The child itself may suffer. Subsection (4) proposes that if the mother has executed a document such as I have described, and if the people who have in mind to adopt the child have started proceedings to get an adoption order, then, though they will still remain free to reject the child until the adoption order is made, the mother shall not be free to claim to remove the infant in the interval before the court decides whether to make an adoption order; provided, however, that when the order is considered by the court the mother may come and there satisfy them that she wishes for good reasons to withdraw her child.
I think that is a reasonable arrangement to make, subject to one point, which I make to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who has taken a great interest in this Bill, as I have. I can imagine a case in which this new provision might work unfairly unless care is taken. It would work unfairly if the people who have taken over the child and have it in their custody, and before the three months are up, which must elapse before they can get an adoption order, made an application for an adoption order merely to stop the mother from asking for the child back, without any intention on their own part really to get an adoption order. Therefore I would be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell us whether he will accept this view. It would be intolerable if would-be adopters, by merely applying for an order and then not proceeding with the application, used subsection (4) to produce a situation in which the mother of a child was barred from getting, her child back without leave of the court, while the adopters remained free to change their mind. I feel sure it is not the intention to let that happen.
I accept that it is better for that situation to be met by rule rather than by
1512
any provision in the Statute, and I therefore shall be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that where an application for an adoption order has been made under subsection (4) the rules will be such as will secure that it is brought on for hearing without delay, once the three months probationary period has expired; and that, if those who have made an application for an adoption order do not pursue that application with reasonable promptitude—I understand there may be reasons why the court should adjourn the hearing for a time—subsection (4) shall not be allowed to give the would-be adopter freedom for an indefinite time to reject the child, though they have stopped the mother from claiming that the child should be returned to her. I believe that new rules will have to be made in any case for juvenile courts, for county courts and for the High Court. I recognise that in some of these cases the first thing that happens after an application has been filed is that a guardian is appointed ad litem.
I am anxious for an assurance that in drawing up new rules, care will be taken to secure that the proceedings thus started will be carried through with reasonable promptitude. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount wishes that to be done. Existing rules, both for the magistrates' court and the county court, might be said already to make a provision of this kind, though, as I have said, I think there will have to be new rules. I doubt whether there is at present any such provision in the High Court, because, generally speaking, if you start proceedings in the High Court you do not find that those proceedings are cancelled or struck out save on the application of the defendant, who goes to the court and says: "Here is this Writ hanging about; no one is taking any further steps, and I ask that it should be struck out." In cases like these we are dealing mostly with poor people and often mothers—sometimes illegitimate mothers, though not always—and it is not practicable to say that they may go to the court if they like. Therefore, I would like the Lord Chancellor to tell me—as I think he will be glad to do—in proper terms, that he will see to it that under the Bill (which I am glad is now to become an Act) this particular loophole will be stopped, in order that we

1513
may carry through this new and greatly improved procedure without doing an injustice to anybody.
I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons Amendments which are before us—that applies to all of them—but I hope that before the Question is put my noble and learned friend will be able to give me the assurance for which I ask.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Simon.)
8.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to express the great reluctance with which I accept the new subsection (4). When the Bill left this House it was a completely balanced Bill. We protected equally the rights of the natural parent and the adopted parent. We ensured that the rights of the natural parent were not diminished up to the moment when the Adoption Order was finally made by the court. We then transferred those rights as completely as we could to the adopted parent. We now have an Amendment which diminishes the rights of the natural parent to change her mind with regard to the document which she has signed. If it was found necessary—I know there has been much pressure brought upon the Government on this matter—so to diminish the rights of the natural parent, I consider that there should also have been some diminution of the rights of the adopting parents to change their minds. I am well aware that grave harm is sometimes wrought to a child who is taken by adopting parents into their home and, being of an age to understand what is happening, gives to those would-be adopters love and confidence, and then (as happened in a case of which I have heard) the child, having been kept with the would-be adopters for a period of some weeks, is sent back because they say they do not like the child. I trust that not many years will pass before more comprehensive legislation on the whole subject of adoption will be promoted, and that what I have said will then receive consideration.
8.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise not to enter into the slight element of controversy which has just been voiced, or to express an opinion on it, but only to answer the question raised
1514
by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. As I understand him, he wants some assurance that when an application for an adoption order has been made, steps will be taken to see that it is brought on for hearing without delay once the three months' probationary period has expired and that unless this is done the application shall be struck out. I may say at once that I entirely agree with him that it would be intolerable for would-be adopters, by simply applying for an order and then not proceeding with their application, to use the machinery of sub-section (4) to produce a situation in which the mother would be barred from getting her child back without the leave of the court, while the adopters themselves remained free to change their minds for an unnecessarily long time. As the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, it is the fact that only in the county courts and in the magistrates' courts is there no possibility of an application being left on the file without it coming up for hearing at any early date. So far as the magistrates' courts are concerned—after all, it is there that four out of every five adoption cases are dealt with—the Rules already provide that as soon as the guardian ad litem has been appointed, a time for hearing is to he fixed, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts apply as if the proceedings were by way of complaint and summons. The effect of this is that if at the time fixed by the court for the hearing of the application the applicants do not wish to proceed and can show no reasonable ground for an adjournment, the court will automatically dismiss the application. The position is substantially the same in the county court.
I feel that we must leave a discretion in the courts to decide whether an application is being prosecuted with reasonable promptitude, and that it would be quite impracticable to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the date on which an application had to be heard and determined. Obviously, the nature of the inquiries to be made differs from case to case, and some cases may involve a little more delay than others. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount may rest assured that all the courts are well aware of the need for avoiding any delay in the hearing of these applications. I agree with him that new Rules will have

1515
to be made for the juvenile courts and the county courts and also, I think, for the High Court. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that, when these Rules are made, the points he has raised will be carefully considered with a view to ensuring that it is not possible for would-be adopters to delay the hearing of their application. I hope that will satisfy the noble and learned Viscount and put his mind at rest on this problem.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the Lord Chancellor very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REORGANISATION AREAS MEASURE, 1944 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1949
8.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, at this late hour I can say what needs to be said in very abbreviated form. This amending Measure was passed by the Church Assembly without a division, and it has received the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure which it amends was an emergency Measure passed in 1934, not to deal with a permanent piece of church machinery, but to provide for areas where the distribution of population had been altered, owing either to war damage or to planning schemes. In such case obviously there had to be revision of parochial areas. Provision had to be made for redistribution of benefice incomes where parish boundaries were changed, and also for demolition, disposal or restriction of church property.
In order to do this with as little delay as possible, it was obviously desirable to restrict vested interests during the interim period. It was, therefore, provided that in such cases the benefice might be kept vacant for three years without the patron's right of appointment lapsing. This is the point. Experience has proved that these rearrangements cannot always be carried through in three
1516
years, as the complicated machinery for making schemes takes time. Moreover, in some cases it is impossible for church authorities to plan until the civil authorities make up their minds about their planning schemes. Therefore, this amending Measure simply proposes to extend the period during which a benefice in a reorganisation area may be kept vacant until the date when the original Measure ceases to operate—namely, March 31, 1954. I add only that the rights of patrons continue to be secured against lapse, and they have the right, as before, to be consulted by the Bishop when he makes temporary appointments for the interim period. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (Amendment) Measure, 1949, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
REGISTERED DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
VEHICLES EXCISE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to and consequential Amendments made to the Bill, the said consequential Amendments to be printed.

RIVER GREAT OUSE (FLOOD PROTECTION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.