Sitting of 20 January 1949

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

TRADE AND NAVIGATION
Accounts ordered,
"relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1949."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    X-ray Apparatus
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Health to what extent medical X-ray apparatus built in this country is dependent on the U.S. for deep therapy tubes and valves; and whether steps are being taken to increase capacity for their manufacture in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Production of deep therapy tubes and valves is being developed by manufacturers but for the present we are almost entirely dependent upon imports.
    Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that this dependence upon foreign countries for deep therapy tubes is a serious matter and a weakness for our own industry; and is he prepared to consider whether some form of loan might be given to enable more intensive research work to be carried out?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not know that loans will help the position at all. This is highly technical and skilled work and is being developed. I have met some of the manufacturers.

    Mental Hospital Patients (Outside Work)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Health under what conditions patients in mental hospitals are employed on outside work; what steps
    306
    are taken to see that any such work is conducive to their rehabilitation and that they are not given alcohol when so employed; and whether the agreement of their next-of-kin is obtained.
    Mr. Bevan: The conditions are determined by the Medical Superintendent, who decides what is suitable for the patients concerned, and whether they may properly have any alcoholic refreshment. The agreement of the next-of-kin is not obtained, nor is it necessary.
    Mr. Greenwood: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him, so far as the kind of work is concerned, whether he will discourage any repetition of the practice by which until recently mental patients were employed as beaters by the Mid-Essex Coursing Club and caused considerable distress among their fellow patients by their unpleasant descriptions of the sufferings of the hare?
    Mr. Bevan: I should have thought myself that if outside activity of this kind is agreeable and good for patients it ought to be undertaken by the institution as part of the healing treatment of the patients and not, incidentally, for somebody else's benefit.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not obvious that some patients from mental hospitals have escaped and are now members of His Majesty's Government?

    Medicine Bottles
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Health why no charge is made for medicine bottles supplied under the National Health Service; what is being done to maintain an adequate supply; and what action is being taken to prevent wastage of bottles.
    Mr. Bevan: These matters are under consideration.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of bottles which have been issued and the very small percentage returned in the same condition?
    Mr. Bevan: I could not give that estimate. I think it would require an enormous amount of clerical work to collect it and I should imagine that the amount of work involved in getting the information would exceed the expenditure on the bottles.
    Mr. Harrison: Is there any indication of when these considerations will result in some action from my right hon. Friend's Department?
    Mr. Bevan: After all, the Health Service has only been in operation for six months and it is necessary to collect information so that we can take action which is intelligent action. It will not be very long.
    Mr. Harrison: It is a very simple matter.
    Mr. Bevan: Oh!
    Mr. Odey: Could the Minister give a projected average per month of these medicine bottles?
    Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot.

    Spectacles, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that citizens of Newport have to wait for eyeglasses as long as 17 weeks in some cases; and whether he will accelerate delivery.
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware that there are difficulties generally. All practicable steps are being taken to arrange for increased production.
    Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the position is improving or getting worse?
    Mr. Bevan: The position is improving, certainly. A very large number of persons have had spectacles who formerly would not have had them.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although delay is not so long in all areas as it apparently is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman), some difficulty arises from the fact that there is no arrangement for assessing the relative urgency of applications and working out a priority scheme for urgent cases?
    Mr. Bevan: Discussions have already taken place with ophthalmic opticians to try to obtain priority for urgent cases.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend say how many years the citizens of Great Britain waited for spectacles before the scheme was introduced?
    Mr. Bevan: It is very evident that there must have been a very large number of people in almost all classes of the community who did not have glasses before 5th July.
    Mr. Marlowe: Since they have had to wait so long, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the glasses are of sufficient magnifying power for them to see their meat ration?
    Mr. Bevan: It is also one of the incidental disabilities of the service that they will be able to read the nonsense of the Conservative Party.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it impossible for those who want spectacles different from standard to obtain them by payment of an extra sum?
    Mr. Bevan: No. It is possible for persons who desire to have frames which are superior to those issued under the National Health Service to make a payment, but we have protected the citizen by negotiating with the concerns as to what the overall payment shall be. Where glasses are ordered of a different kind and are necessary for clinical reasons, they can be obtained free.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before children can be issued with splinterless glasses which they had prior to the Act?
    Mr. Bevan: I am sure parents would not wish to restore children to the situation in which they were before the Health Service, but the question of splinterless glass, where medically necessary, for example in epileptic cases, is being urgently considered.

  HOUSING

    Hotel, Buxton (Squatters)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, although in accordance with the advice contained in his departmental letter NW/935/717A/2/2 dated 2nd November, 1948, application was duly made by the Buxton Corporation both to his Department and to the Regional Planning Officer for authority to rehouse on the Lad Manlow site the squatters in the Empire Hotel, no answer has been received from either Department; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret the delay in dealing with this difficult case and I am taking steps to clear it up as quickly as possible.

    Local Authorities (Lists)
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive revised housing lists from local authorities; and if he will publish in the next Local Authority Housing Returns the appropriate figures.
    Mr. Bevan: I have asked for returns by 31st March. After the figures have been examined I will consider the question of publication.
    Mr. Bing: Will the Minister also consider the cases of people who, because of a variation between the points schemes of the various authorities, are not on the housing list of any authority?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that as this is a screening of the lists of the various authorities it would be awfully difficult to consider people who are not on the lists, because they would be an unknown quantity.

    Permanent Houses
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Health the reasons for the decline recently in permanent house building; and what is the average projected figure per month for the ensuing year.
    Mr. Bevan: The number of new permanent houses completed in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1948, was 205,274 as compared with 121,082 for the 12 months ended 30th November, 1947, and the fluctuations month by month have been no more than was to be expected in a programme of this magnitude. The programme has now reached a stage where it can be judged on its achievements better than on forecasts.
    Mr. Austin: What is the average projected figure for a month for the ensuing year, which is asked for in the second part of my Question, to which the Minister has not replied?
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot give the average for the ensuing year until the year is complete, because the average would be the number at the end of the year, divided by 12.
    Mr. Austin: The projected average?
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot give the projected average, because it would depend on the actual achievement.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: May we take it that the figures given by the Minister refer to new houses and would not reflect the decline in private enterprise housing?
    Mr. Bevan: The figure refers to new houses alone and not any other form of accommodation. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, that has been answered so frequently that I should have thought hon. Members opposite were tired of the answer.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that these permanent houses are substantially larger than those built before the war, but, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom interim plan submitted to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation provides an overall expenditure on new house building of 1,000 million dollars for the year 1949–50, will he say if he anticipates that this will involve an increase or a decrease?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not the figures to which my hon. Friend refers in my mind at the moment, but obviously expenditure upon one form of social service competes with expenditure upon another part of the social service so long as the global figure remains the same. If we tie ourselves, as I think we must, to the relationship between the total expenditure on social services and the whole capital expenditure of the country, we must then decide how we are to dispose that expenditure over the whole social service claims.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that only last year the Minister of Health projected a figure of 300,000 houses for 1948, why is it impossible to project a figure for 1949?
    Mr. Bevan: I have no recollection of a projected figure of 300,000 for 1948 and where the hon. Gentleman gets that I do not know.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister explain why there is such good progress in England, but not in Scotland? Is it due to the fact that labour and materials should be diverted to Scotland?
    Mr. Bevan: It would be no more an easy task to divert labour from England to Scotland than from Scotland to England and I believe the rate of completion in Scotland is now very satisfactory indeed.
    Mr. Hughes: Oh, no.

    Police Officers
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with local authorities with a view to accelerating the provision of houses for police officers.
    Mr. Bevan: Consultations with local authorities already take place as and when occasion arises. Provision is also made in the housing programme for the building of certain numbers of houses by police authorities.
    Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend regard as one of the effects which must arise today the critical position in regard to crime figures and the difficulty in police recruiting?
    Mr. Bevan: I am always in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on these matters, and more than 1,000 houses have already been included in the local authority housing programme for police officers and more are in contemplation.
    Captain John Crowder: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any orders, or directions, to local authorities to give priority to married policemen who have no houses in which to live?
    Mr. Bevan: I issued a circular on 9th October, 1945, in consultation with the Home Office asking local authorities to take these matters into consideration, but I cannot ask that an overriding priority should be given to an able-bodied police officer as against a consumptive civilian.
    Mr. Lipson: Are these houses intended for police officers in addition to the allocation made to local authorities at the zonal conference? If not, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be additional?
    Mr. Bevan: They are not in addition, they are part of the general housing programme, as indeed they must be, because a police officer who goes into a house releases a house for someone else. I cannot add to the housing programme until
    312
    Parliament adds to the physical resources of the country.

    Census
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health if he will make a census of Britain's houses on the lines of the 1931 Census, to give a clear picture of the nature and conditions of the nation's dwellings.
    Mr. Bevan: One of the objects of the next Census will be to obtain additional data concerning the housing of the people.
    Sir W. Smithers: If the Minister knew more about his job, would he not be aware that his present policy is preventing building of the maximum number of houses and that if he only restored free enterprise to builders of £1,300 houses he would get double the number of houses built?
    Mr. Bevan: It would of course be possible, by permitting people to build houses where they liked, to build more houses for some people who could afford to pay, at the expense of those who could not.
    Sir W. Smithers: That is most unfair. I said £1,300 houses.

  EDUCATION

    Teachers' Salaries (London Scale)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Education what progress has now been made with the claim for the extension of London area scales of teachers' salaries to teachers in Kingston, Surbiton and district.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I have received a letter making the claim to which the hon. Member refers and I have replied that the matter received full consideration recently by the Burnham Committee, and I see no sufficient grounds for asking that Committee to consider it afresh.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it a fact that the Burnham Committee was unable to come to any definite decision one way or another? Is it not also a fact that this matter has been under discussion for 11 years now, and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is still under the pathetic illusion that the cost-of-living in

    313
    Kingston is less than in Richmond, Wimbledon and Twickenham? Is it not time to come up to date?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It has been under discussion not for 11 years but, to my knowledge, 20 years. All the time this difficulty of differentiating in the area has been apparent. What was discussed on the last occasion by the Burnham Committee was the Local Government Boundary Commission Report, and it was decided that they would consider this matter afresh when the Report of the Boundary Commission had been implemented.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Minister give an undertaking that as soon as that Report is available the matter will be reconsidered afresh and not left for another 20 years?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I did not say available, I said implemented.

    Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs (Grant)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister of Education what assistance from public funds is given to the National Association of Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs; and if he is satisfied that this is a non-political body.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The National Association of Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs receives direct grant from my Department under the Social and Physical Training Grant Regulations. The amount of this grant for the current year is £20,500. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Hughes: While this organisation is doing much good work, may I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to the arrangements for its Christmas Cracker Bazaar at the Mayfair Hotel which was opened by Mrs. Winston Churchill, and where the variety bazaar was presided over by Lady Woolton and Mrs. Walter Elliot?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—In, view of the lack of variety in these arrangements does the Minister consider that it was due to the political bias or the political innocence of its organisers?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not think that there was any political bias. As a matter of fact, if my hon. Friend had
    314
    gone back to the previous year he would have found that the wife of the Prime Minister presided and the Lord Chancellor opened the bazaar.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Gallacher: In order to show that there is no bias, will the Minister arrange for the next Christmas bazaar to be opened by Mrs. Harry Pollitt?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that the Minister has no jurisdiction in this matter, and we do not determine grants according to the names of the people who open the bazaar.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Education whether he has a target for the provision of nursery schools and nursery classes for children aged two and under five; what is the estimate for the number to be accommodated during 1949; and how does this compare with the numbers accommodated during 1948 and 1947.
    Mr. Tomlinson: In drawing up their development plans authorities generally have assumed that, at any rate in urban areas, up to 50 per cent. of the children between two and five may wish to attend nursery schools or classes. I do not expect a substantial increase in the number of children in nursery schools and classes in 1949, although there are plans to provide some more schools in industrial areas.
    Mr. Piratin: Cannot the Minister give a precise answer showing how many he expects in view of the fact that only about 6 per cent. of the children of these ages are being catered for in these nursery classes and schools? If more women had facilities for their children it might help industrial activity.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give an estimate of the number that will be provided for but arrangements have been made that, where in industrial areas they can be of economic benefit to the country, plans for nursery schools shall go through.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that it would be much better that, where possible, children of this early age should remain at home and be looked after by their mothers?

    School Meals (Assistance)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Education what is the latest date at which he has information concerning the implementation by local education authorities themselves of Circular 97 on the provision of outside assistance in the school meals service.
    Mr. Tomlinson: 1st July, 1946, was the date of the last return which I asked all local education authorities to send me about the employment of midday assistants in the school meals service.
    Mr. Piratin: If July, 1946, is the latest date of the Minister's information how was he able, on 2nd December last year, to answer a Question of mine to the effect that he was satisfied that the authorities were taking steps to implement that circular?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Because the representatives of the teachers and of the local authorities have been informed again and again of this circular, and any request or complaint made by local authorities is inquired into at once. Only one such complaint has been made and action is now being taken on that.
    Mr. Ralph Morley: What action does my right hon. Friend's Ministry take in regard to those authorities which are not implementing Circular 97?
    Mr. Tomlinson: They are instructed that it is their duty to do so.

    Dental Officers (Salary Scale)
    Mr. Harrisonasked the Minister of Education what progress is being made in the consideration of the scale of salaries for school dental officers to avoid the disparity of pay that exists between the school dental officer and the dental practitioner working under the Ministry of Health, which results in wholesale retirements of dentists from the school service; and what effect this will have on the salaries structure of local authorities.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The local authority associations have asked for a meeting with representatives of the Government on this and related questions and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are seeing them shortly.
    Mr. Harrison: I hope that the Minister realises that the National Health Service does not provide any alternative to this essential service, and that he will take
    316
    into consideration the essential need to reach some agreement before the present service is completely wrecked?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

    INDIA AND PAKISTAN (U.K. CITIZENSHIP)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the United Kingdom High Commissioner for India has sent circulars to a number of British subjects of European origin asking them whether they wish to be included in a record of potential citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and whether this action was taken on his instructions.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): In view of the coming into force of the British Nationality Act on 1st January it is the duty of the United Kingdom High Commissioners in India and Pakistan to register those persons whose acquisition of United Kingdom citizenship will depend on registration under Sections 6, 7 and 12 (6) of the Act. It will, moreover, be desirable, for such reasons as the issue and renewal of United Kingdom passports, to have on record as full a list as possible of all United Kingdom citizens in those Dominions, even if their citizenship is not dependent on registration. For these reasons, I instructed the High Commissioners to take steps to bring the provisions of the Act to the notice of British subjects of European origin and to invite them to submit evidence of their qualifications for United Kingdom citizenship.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the reasons for this action, the intimation to people who have always regarded themselves as citizens of this country that they are now to apply to be regarded as potential citizens has come as something of a shock? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the High Commissioners to present the matter to these people in a somewhat more helpful and lucid manner?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I greatly regret the shock, if there has been one. The phrase is a technical one arising out of the Act. I hope that my answer will serve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in view. I will also see if there is anything more that I can do.

    EIRE (TREATY OBLIGATIONS)
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the fact that the Republic of Ireland Bill has now been passed into law, he has called the attention of the Government of Eire to the contractual obligations involved in the Treaty of December, 1921, and expressly reserved by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered on the 6th June, 1935; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. I think there would be no advantage in taking the course which the hon. Member suggests.
    Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on all previous occasions when an amendment of the Agreement of 1921 was passed it was bilateral, as it was accepted by Acts of Parliament passed by this House, whereas now there is a complete repudiation of the 1921 Treaty, without His Majesty's Government even being informed, as the Lord Chancellor told us in another place?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not sure that I followed all the implications of what the hon. Member said, but I think I could accept very few of them.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by the ex-Attorney-General in this House to the effect that the Statute of Westminster has no effect on this Treaty?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There was also a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1935 which the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has quoted many times in this House, which said something rather different.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Pig and Poultry Appliances (Exports to Eire)
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated quantity of pig and poultry appliances to be exported to Eire during 1949; and what revenue he estimates will result.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

    Matches (Distribution)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure a more adequate distribution of matches to smaller towns and boroughs for residents in the rural areas; and whether, in view of the large stocks held by a well-known British manufacturer in Gloucester, he will afford greater facilities for home allocation and distribution throughout Worcestershire and the Midlands.
    Mr. H. Wilson: My Department, through the Matches Control, maintains a close watch on the distribution of matches, and in the light of reports by its travelling inspectors the Control is constantly adjusting supplies so as to ensure that each area gets its fair share, and that overall stocks are not unduly heavy. I am making inquiries into the specific complaint of scarcity in the areas referred to by the hon. Member and will write to him as soon as they are completed.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is this not a matchless Government? It pays lip service to the wants of the people, but never does anything really practical to assist those in the rural areas.
    Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to increase the Government controls on the match industry I am prepared to consider any representations he might wish to make.
    Mr. De la Bère: I do not want any more controls; I want common sense.

    X-Ray Film
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the supply of X-ray film available to hospitals, in view of the increased demand coupled with decreased supplies for home consumption.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Supplies of X-ray film to the home market have been increasing, but not enough to meet the increased demand since the war, and especially in the last six months. Manufacturers have

    319
    been doing all that they can to increase production, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am asking them to supply a larger proportion of their output to the home market. There is, however, a shortage of X-ray film, not only here but throughout the world, and my right hon. Friend and I would make an urgent appeal to doctors, hospitals and all others who use it to exercise the utmost economy.
    Mr. Chamberlain: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he would bear in mind that hospitals are facing a most serious situation in this respect, and that the Middlesex Hospital, in which I am particularly interested, is now working on one week's supply, whereas a year ago it had a three months' stock, and that is a serious position?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but since a year ago the consumption of this material has increased by over 30 per cent.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Yes, but not to that extent.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is it not a fact that one of the principal reasons for this shortage, which never occurred before, is the virtual elimination of X-ray engineers and the chaos on the distribution side which has been created by the Government's own action?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The principal reason for the shortage is that in spite of increased production the consumption and use of it has increased so very much.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman further admit that the amount of money obtained for this film abroad is far greater than the Ministry of Health in this country is prepared to pay and that that is very largely why there is such a great shortage?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The level of exports, which has continued until recently, was the result of the efforts of the manufacturers to export as much as possible. Now we have asked them to cut down exports to meet the home demand.

    Cotton Industry
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered a letter and pamphlet from the Liverpool Cotton Association which have been sent to him; and if, in order to accelerate the economic recovery of Britain he will now re-open the Liverpool Cotton Market.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have considered the letter and pamphlet from the Liverpool Cotton Association, but I am unable to accept the implication that the Liverpool Cotton Market should be re-opened. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) on Tuesday last.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that Ministers are appealing for increased exports, especially invisible exports, why close down one of our best export earners? Why not re-open it? And is not this the Communist technique of saying one thing and doing the opposite?

    Timber Control (Profits)
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the President of the Board of Trade the annual profits made by the Timber Control up to the latest available date.
    Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend will find the latest available information on this subject in the "Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets, 1946–47" (House of Commons Paper No. 34 of 1947–48).
    Mr. Haire: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the profits enjoyed by the Timber Control are, at least, partly responsible for the present high price of timber?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir.

    Dutch Vegetables (Imports)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that horticultural growers will be consulted before any further agreements, relating to the import of Dutch vegetable products, are signed with the Dutch Government.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Every endeavour is made to ensure that our negotiators are fully acquainted with the views of United Kingdom producers and that their position is taken into account within the

    321
    general framework of the negotiations. It would, however, be quite out of the question for the Government to commit themselves to prior consultation, either with horticultural growers or with other groups of United Kingdom producers, before entering into agreements with other Governments.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while welcoming this agreement with Holland which shares so many problems with us at this moment, contact with the horticultural growers in England would have enabled certain aspects of this Treaty to be altered to help home producers without preventing an agreement at all?
    Mr. Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that in each bilateral trade negotiation there are hundreds, if not thousands, of commodities covered in trade on both sides. I am sure he will understand, from what he has said about the Netherlands, that in any trade negotiations it is essential to take some of the traditional exports of the country with whom we are dealing if we are to expect them to take some of our traditional exports as well.

    Census of Distribution (Postponement)
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider postponing the Census of Distribution Plan, to be taken in 1950, owing to the abnormality of business conditions at the present time.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that it is always possible to find some departure from normal trading conditions in any year, and I would not regard the representations that have been made to me about 1949 as sufficient in themselves to justify any postponement. Nevertheless, during the last two months I have received communications from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from many trade organisations. These communications have shown me that many of those engaged in the distributive trades have not become sufficiently acquainted either with the form that the census will take or with their responsibilities in completing the census forms; this is particularly so in the case of small shopkeepers. Since it is fundamental to the success of the census that traders should
    322
    fully understand the part they must play, the Government have decided to postpone the Census of Distribution for one year and I shall make the necessary Order as soon as possible. Moreover, many traders have not realised they may, if it is more convenient to them, make a return for their financial year rather than the calendar year 1949.

    Machinery Exports
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the allocation of permits for machinery to be exported to Poland, with which country during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1948, there was a balance of British exports considerably in excess of imports, if he will consider allotting such machinery to our own Colonies, where the balance of trade is reversed, instead, in order to assist the new Colonial Development Schemes now in need of practically all types of machinery.
    Mr. H. Wilson: With very few exceptions the distribution of machinery exports is not subject to control by the Government, and the question of reallocating supplies as suggested does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the West Indies, for example, send us some £26 million worth of goods a year more than we send them, and that on the other hand, Russia, and her satellites such as Poland, send us £26 million worth of goods less than we send them? Can he give any assurance to the House that the overwhelming requirements of the Colonies are taken into account at the time when these trade negotiations are undertaken?
    Mr. Wilson: I cannot accept the figures given by my hon. Friend, but I am well aware that the demand for British capital goods exports is far in excess of our capacity to meet it. I can certainly tell him that not only Colonial needs are borne in mind, but the export of capital equipment to the Commonwealth as a whole, including the Colonies, is very much greater than before the war.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time when these trade agreements are negotiated with other foreign Governments?
    Mr. Wilson: I have the closest degree of consultation with all my right hon. Friends before any bilateral trade negotiation begins.

    Former Official (Allegations)
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has instituted inquiries into allegations made in the course of evidence given in the Central Criminal Court on 29th November, 1948, that an official of his Department had had to be paid in connection with a sale of table-cloths and table napkins at a price exceeding the permitted maximum; and what action he has taken as the result of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The police were consulted and the Lord Chief Justice's observations were brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The official against whom the allegations were made ceased to be employed by the Board of Trade in January, 1945, and is now dead.

    Granite (Imports)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the President of the Board of Trade how much granite and marble, respectively, was imported by the United Kingdom in 1948 and 1949; what is the estimated import for 1949; how many British associations will take part in importing granite during 1949; and what was the total production of granite in England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall in 1948.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Seven thousand tons of granite, value £53,000, and 15,713 tons of marble, value £404,000, were imported into the United Kingdom in 1948. No figures are yet available for actual imports in 1949 to date. Imports have been permitted only at the request of the foreign countries concerned, and as part of satisfactory trade agreements with them; the hon. Member will not expect me to forecast what may be the outcome of 1949 trade negotiations with the countries concerned, since these are not yet completed. Import licences will be issued to individual importers and there will be no question of importing through particular trade associations. Total estimated production for England, Scotland, and Wales in 1948 was approximately 4,100,000 tons. Of this Cornish production was approximately 32,000 tons.
    Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister if, before these negotiations were settled the industry was consulted in any way, because this is a hurt so far as Cornwall is concerned with regard to the importation of granite?
    Mr. Wilson: I have already made clear to the hon. Gentleman for what a small proportion of the national output Cornwall is responsible. We are well aware of the views of the industry. They have been very vocal in this matter. I hope certain questions about procedure for imports will be looked after in the negotiations which are being concluded.
    Mr. Beechman: As a quarry in Cornwall was shut down, will the Minister be so good as to see that consultations take place with the industry to make sure that our granite is used to the fullest extent possible, especially in the making of roads?

    GAS CONSUMERS' COMMITTEE, S.E. REGION
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power when the Gas Consumers' Committee for the South-East Region will be appointed; and whether appropriate bodies have been approached in the matter of the personnel for this Committee.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Nominations have been invited from all the appropriate bodies and associations. We have not yet received all their replies and I cannot say precisely when the Council will be appointed.

    PIT HORSES AND PONIES
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many horses and ponies have been removed from the pits because of old age, infirmity, or other reasons, during 1948; how many of these were humanely destroyed; and how many were sent to homes for rest for horses.
    Mr. Robens: For the year ended 30th June, 1948, the number of horses and ponies cast or humanely destroyed because of disease, old age or infirmity

    325
    was 1,600. As regards the second part of the Question the information is not available.
    Mr. Freeman: What steps, if any, are taken to prevent these ponies being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving the pits?
    Mr. Robens: The Department is only responsible for the collection of information as to those which are killed or cast. I have no information on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say how many of these ponies are actually sold to dealers irrespective of what happened to them afterwards? The facts are known in his Department, so he should know.
    Mr. Robens: No. These figures are not supplied to the Department under the Act.
    Mr. Austin: When will modernisation and mechanisation enable us to dispense completely with the use of pit ponies?
    Mr. Robens: I replied to a similar question some time ago. I indicated that the number of pit ponies was steadily decreasing and that, in the course of time, pit ponies would no longer be used.

    CIVIL DEFENCE ORGANISATION
    Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use is being made, in building up the new Civil Defence Organisation, of the experience gained by the German Civil Defence Organisation in the late war and of the post-war U.S. experiments.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Full account is being taken of all available information of this kind in the preparation of plans for the organisation of Civil Defence, in the examination of Civil Defence problems and in the making of arrangements for Civil Defence training. Some of this information has been embodied in publications issued by the Home Office of which I am sending copies to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Can my right hon. Friend say if he has also investigated the results of the Allied bombing of Japan in the recent war?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. My advisers on this subject take very great pains to keep themselves informed of all research wherever it may be conducted.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the organisation to be administered by the scientific adviser for Civil Defence matters.
    Mr. Ede: In accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, the conduct of research into scientific problems which arise in connection with Civil Defence planning is undertaken by existing research organisations such as those of the Ministry of Supply and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is the responsibility of the Chief Scientific Adviser, working in close association with the Scientific Advisers to the Service Departments and the scientific authorities in other Departments, to define and bring to notice in the appropriate quarter the Civil Defence problems requiring research, and to ensure that all research for Civil Defence is properly co-ordinated. In addition, he himself undertakes, in collaboration with the Departments concerned, research of the kind described by the Advisory Council as operational research. To assist him in his duties the Chief Scientific Adviser has a staff of five scientists.

    POLICE FORCE (NUMBERS)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present deficiency in numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether he is satisfied with the recruitment campaign.
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the public anxiety caused by the recent increase in the incidence of crimes of violence in London; to what extent this increase is due to the fact that the police are insufficient in numbers to discharge their protective

    327
    duties adequately; and what steps he is taking to stimulate recruitment to the Metropolitan Police Force.
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the Police Force so that it will be able to deal more effectively with the disquieting incidence of crime.
    Mr. Ede: I am afraid, Sir, the answer is rather longer than is usually the case. According to the latest available figures, the Metropolitan Police are 4,291 and the county and borough police forces outside London 7,420 men short of establishment. During 1948 there was a net increase of 755 men in the regular strength of the Metropolitan Police and of 2,451 in the forces outside London. The need to improve the rate of recruitment in some parts of the country was one of the reasons for the appointment of the Committee under Lord Oaksey's chairmanship which is now considering police conditions of service. As regards the incidence of crimes of violence in London, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has recently pointed out that the number of armed robberies reported in the Metropolitan Police district in the first 11 months of 1948 was 43, 15 less than in the corresponding period of 1947, and that the percentage of arrests in respect of all robberies in the Metropolitan Police district was 22.9 per cent. greater in 1948 than in 1947. I am nevertheless fully aware of the public concern at the reports of recent crimes of violence, but I should not feel justified in proposing any substantial changes in police conditions of service, with a view to accelerating recruitment, in advance of the Oaksey Committee's Report.
    Mr. Skeffington: While I thank the Home Secretary for his full reply, may I ask him how many special constables there are in the Metropolitan Area and how far they relieve the position?
    Mr. Ede: Not without notice.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the great urgency of this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman know when the Oaksey Report is likely to be available?
    Mr. Ede: I had a conversation myself with Lord Oaksey yesterday and he hopes to have the Report in my hands well before Easter.
    Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether men now employed in agriculture or coal mining are free to join the Police Force if they wish, or are there still obstacles in their way?
    Mr. Ede: No. Two or three months ago, perhaps a little longer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour removed the bar on these men enlisting in the police forces.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of asking the police authorities to give a little less attention to the more petty forms of traffic offence or to the unnecessary chasing around the streets of barrow boys?
    Mr. Ede: It would put me in a quite wrong position with the police forces if I indicated to them, in the light of their knowledge of the particular area they serve, the kind of crime on which they should concentrate.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where there are traffic lights there are usually enormous numbers of traffic police trying to trap motorists, and that they are really not doing much good?
    Mr. Ede: I gave a reply recently which stated that over 700 police were saved in the Metropolitan Police Area alone by the use of traffic lights.
    Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask local authorities to do their best to provide suitable accommodation, especially for married policemen because, as he knows, it goes against recruiting if a married man and his wife cannot find suitable accommodation?
    Mr. Ede: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for putting that question. I have made many appeals to housing authorities to help me in this matter. I am certain that the biggest bar to the retention of suitable recruits is the difficulty of providing a married man with a house in the neighbourhood of his employment.

    IMPERIAL SERVICE MEDAL
    Brigadier Petoasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider recommending the award of the Imperial

    329
    Service Medal, in appropriate cases, for those who have completed a total period of meritorious and exemplary service of 25 years either in the Forces or in the Civil Service, or partly in one and partly in the other.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The Statutes of the Imperial Service Order make it clear that the Order and the Medal were founded for the Civil Service. If service in the Armed Forces were to be put on the same basis as service in the Civil Service in reckoning the qualifying period, this would deprive awards of their special character as a Civil Service distinction. War-time service in the Forces, if pensionable under the Superannuation Acts, does, however, count towards the qualifying period of 25 years for the grant of the Medal.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the Prime Minister give any indication whether, by reason of the fact that in the past members of the Indian Civil Service were recipients of a percentage of these medals, there is likely to be any difference in the terms of award in future?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Prime Minister whether he will now name the members of the Royal Commission on the Death Penalty.
    The Prime Minister: The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Capital Punishment with the following terms of reference:
    "To consider and report whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, and if so, to what extent and by what means, for how long and under what conditions persons who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment should be detained, and what changes in the existing law and the prison system would be required; and to inquire into and take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may throw light on these questions."
    I am glad to be able to announce that Sir Ernest Gowers will act as chairman of the Royal Commission and I hope to
    330
    be able to give the names of members of the Commission before very long.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Having regard to the importance of this question and to the pace at which some Royal Commissions move, will the Prime Minister do what is possible to expedite the proceedings of this Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot very well order a Royal Commission to report within so many days. It must be left to them. Perhaps sometimes the importance and difficulty of the question mean that they have to sit for a long time.
    Mr. John Paton: May I ask if the use of the words "limited" or "modified" in these terms of reference would preclude the Commission from recommending the total abolition of the penalty.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It was thought that it would be much more useful if the Royal Commission inquired into modifications or alternatives, because the straight issue of capital punishment is one on which Parliament in due course will have to take its decision. It is not very suitable to put it before a Royal Commission.
    Mr. Hale: Does the Prime Minister realise that that begs the whole case for abolition which has already been carried by this House on a free vote, and that if a Commission is appointed to express an opinion whether it should be limited or modified, the report of that Commission will be read as a report against abolition; and may I implore the Prime Minister to reconsider these terms of reference and to make it abundantly apparent that the Commission is to have a free vote?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that is not so. I have made it abundantly clear, as I stated, that it is for Parliament to decide on that issue. I am quite sure that if we put up a Royal Commission with terms of reference to consider abolition, we should merely get majority and minority reports, and I think it is much more useful to set up a Commission with these terms of reference.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the Prime Minister say how many women will take part?
    The Prime Minister: No, I cannot.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to consider modification or revision of the McNaghten Rules, in the light of modern knowledge?
    The Prime Minister: I could not say off-hand whether that subject will come up. Broadly speaking, it deals with modifications, but it will be for the Royal Commission to consider in what way it should take that into account.

    WALES (COUNCIL)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Lord President of the Council whether it is his intention to arrange for any of the meetings of the new Council for Wales to be held in public; whether the Council will have power to co-opt additional members; and whether the Council will be able to decide when and where it will meet.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I told the House on the 24th November, the intention is that the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire shall meet in private. It is not proposed that it shall have co-opting powers, but it will, of course, be free to decide when and where it will meet.
    Mr. Freeman: May I ask the Lord President whether he would give permission to the Council so that it could decide itself whether it should meet in public or in private, in view of the desire of many people to have the opportunity of speaking in public?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is desirable as a general practice. There might conceivably be exceptional occasions when there could be public sittings, but I think that if there were very full discussions we should have the Council in danger of being in a little competition with Welsh Members of Parliament in Parliament assembled.
    Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend consider leaving it to the Council itself to decide if it wishes to meet in public?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.
    Mr. Price-White: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons
    332
    for the considerable opposition to the proposed Council for Wales, even amongst local authorities, is that it should meet in private, and will he reconsider the point if he wishes the Council to be a success at all?
    Mr. Morrison: There are various reasons for such criticisms of the proposal as exist, and a number of these reasons for criticism cancel themselves out, like this one does. Many people are apprehensive about the Council in case it should become, in certain respects, a rival of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Lord President also aware that, amongst local authorities which expressed approval of this proposal, disapproval was expressed of the provision that it should meet in private?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Foreign Worker (Direction)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why Josef Rokoczy, a qualified dentist, was directed to agricultural work and prosecuted for refusal.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This man came to this country as a European Volunteer Worker, having signed the usual undertaking to accept the work selected for him. He repeatedly refused agricultural work, and, indeed, said that he intended to emigrate to the Argentine and had no intention of doing any work in this country in the meantime. The prosecution which followed was instituted by the police on the ground that he had contravened the conditions on which he had been allowed to land in this country.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is it not a fact that this man was quite willing to follow his profession, if he was giver a chance to do so? Why was he not given that opportunity?
    Mr. Isaacs: In the first place, he signed up to come here as a volunteer to take such work as was offered to him; secondly, we have no evidence that he is a dentist; thirdly, he made no application to the authorities to be accepted as a dentist, and we do not know if they will accept him if he does make application; and finally, he has been living in England, sitting in idleness, while school children have been doing agricultural work.
    Mr. Stanley: In view of the interest aroused in this case, will not the right hon. Gentleman try him out as a dentist?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the trial.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the intention of successive Governments of this country to allow refugees to come here after being persecuted abroad, has now been departed from by this Government?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is not quite right to put that interpretation upon it. We posted notices in displaced persons' camps on the Continent asking if anybody was ready to volunteer to come here to work. Only those who said they were prepared to accept agricultural or such other work as was offered to them were brought here. This man volunteered to come here to work; he did not come here as a refugee.
    Mr. Hale: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this country has for many years had far too many people in idleness, and that we would rather export than import them?

    Control of Engagement Order
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the imminent conversion of the coal industry into a closed shop, he will relax control of labour and engagements sufficiently to ensure that no individual can be compelled to join a trade union.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Control of Engagement Order does not operate to compel an individual to join a trade union. The question does not therefore arise.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said on 22nd December that the National Coal Board had agreed to a closed shop, and, in the circumstances, will he give an assurance that in no case will any Labour controls be used in such a way as to require a mineworker to join a union against his wishes?
    Mr. Isaacs: The only thing I can say is that it is not the Government's intention to do anything that will break down agreements entered into between employers and workers.
    Mr. John McKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an industry in which the trade union representatives are the only people to deal with questions of wages, conditions, pensions, holidays and so forth, any man who is in that industry and accepts all these benefits negotiated by the trade union representatives without being himself a member is in reality very much in the nature of a parasite?
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Minister of Labour whether he has drawn the attention of all local authorities to Article 22 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and whether he will indicate to these authorities that, since the adoption of the Declaration by His Majesty's Government, it is no longer open to them to pursue a closed shop policy or to require their employees to join any Association.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his Question of 18th January. I assume that he is referring to paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Declaration, and would point out that, while this Article covers rights of peaceful assembly and association in general, rights in regard to the formation and joining of trade unions are explicitly dealt with in Article 23 (4). No change is contemplated in the Government's policy of entrusting to organisations of employers and workers the responsibility for determining terms and conditions of employment.
    Mr. Byers: Does that mean that the Government intend to interpret this Declaration of Human Rights in such a way that they will never have to fulfil it?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, but it does mean that the Government will read the appropriate paragraph of the Declaration instead of the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    EXPORT TRADE PLANNING (U.S.S.R.)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to overcome the difficulties of planning export trade as outlined in paragraph 57 of Command Paper No. 7572 on European Co-operation, he will study, with a

    335
    view to implementation, the success of the planned export-import agreements which have recently been signed between the U.S.S.R. and a number of countries in Eastern Europe.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): If the hon. Member will supply my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with accurate figures of the trade passing under the agreements he mentions, he will be glad to study them. Such figures are not published.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that, in the White Paper, the Chancellor can see no possibility of anything in the way of balanced exports and imports, is it not clear that if two or more countries have an intelligently planned economy, part of that intelligently planned economy will be exports and imports mutually exchanged between one another? Does it need any special intelligence to grasp that fact?

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the Government's overseas expenditure during 1947, and as estimated for 1948, is accounted for by military expenditure, excluding the cost of occupying ex-enemy territories; and what was the total cost of military expenditure abroad in 1938 and 1921, respectively.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the statement given in the White Paper on the United Kingdom Balance of Payments (Command 7520) of Government military expenditure overseas in 1947 and the first half of 1948. Comparable figures for 1938 and 1921 are not available.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why is it that the Chancellor furnishes in the White Paper the facts in relation to the financial position of the country, and does not make an effort to get these figures and to place them in relation to the amount of money which is being spent in other directions?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper to which I have referred him, I think he will find most of the figures that he wants are there.
    Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any comparable figures to those asked for by the hon. Gentleman are available about Russia and her military expenditure?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make any statement about the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows
Monday, 24th January—Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and Committee stage of the Wireless Telegraphy [Money] (No. 2) Resolution.
Tuesday, 25th January—Report and Third Reading of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.
Wednesday, 26th January—Debate on Palestine on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Thursday, 27th January and Friday, 28th January—Second Reading of the American Aid and European Payments (Financial Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
We are advised that the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will be somewhat wide. The House may find it convenient, if you agree, Mr. Speaker, for the Debate to range over the subject matter of the recent White Paper containing the United Kingdom, 1949–50 and long term programmes and the Interim Report of the O.E.E.C. on the European Recovery Programme. If, Sir, that could be arranged with your concurrence, I think it would meet the general convenience of the House.
Mr. Clement Davies: Whilst appreciating that two days are necessary for the Economic Debate on Thursday and Friday, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider whether it is possible to extend the time of the sitting of the House on Wednesday—as there are so many hon. Members interested in this matter—in case the ordinary sitting does not prove quite long enough for a full Debate?
Mr. Morrison: I will try to ascertain the feelings about that, and I will consider it, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot, on the spur of the moment, give an undertaking. I will take that request into account.
Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the importance of this two-day Debate, may I ask the Government whether they will take steps to provide further copies of a book with a blue cover which was issued in Paris and in which was a printed slip? To avoid expense it was issued as a White Paper. Are the Government aware that we cannot get copies in the office, and that that book covers the whole of the European Recovery Plan issued not by the Government, but by the O.E.E.C.?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that a copy has been supplied to every Member of the House, including the hon. Gentleman—he may have mislaid it among his numerous documents of one sort or another—but, in view of what he says, I will see whether anything can be done to meet any possible losses of the copies that have been distributed.
Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing the situation which has arisen by the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act and the unilateral repudiation of the Agreement of 1921 registered by the Free State as a Treaty at Geneva?
Mr. Morrison: Well, Sir, I think I had better think about that before I say anything.
Professor Savory: Surely, the matter is urgent?
Mr. Austin: Regarding the subject for Debate next Wednesday, may we take it that, on this occasion, the Foreign Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Air will be present; and, secondly, in view of my right hon. Friend's repeated refusal to suspend the Rule at the request of hon. Members, may I add my small voice to the request made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the Rule be suspended in view of the enormous interest take in this Debate?
Mr. Morrison: On the last point, I have already answered the right hon. and
338
learned Gentleman. On the first point, quite obviously my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here, and, if I may say so, I do not think it is necessary for my hon. Friend to make a suggestion to the effect that the Foreign Secretary is afraid to face the music.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Debate on Palestine, is it not the case that it is not so much what is said now as what is done, and will not the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider between now and Wednesday making a statement recognising the Government of Israel, which would settle the whole trouble?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman says it is not so much what is said as what is done. That is a first-class doctrine, and I recommend him to apply it.
Mr. Nally: As I understand it, it is likely that some time during the next few days we shall have made available to us the findings of the Tribunal over which Mr. Justice Lynskey presided. I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend would agree that it would be to the convenience of the House if he could give us some guidance as to the length of time which the Government propose to allot to the discussion of these findings? It seems to me that in view of the importance of it, and the number of hon. Members who will desire to speak, we ought to be given some indication of the length of time the Government consider appropriate.
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid my hon. Friend puts a difficult point to me. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not yet received the report of the Tribunal. As he has not received it and nobody else has seen it, it is a little premature to consider what comes out of it. I think it would be wiser for my hon. Friend to put that question when the report has been made available and people have had some opportunity of reading it.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): On 18th December, under the headline of "Big New Fraud Enquiries" "More Sensational than the Tribunal," the "Daily Graphic" referred to a new

339
large-scale investigation by Scotland Yard's fraud squad in which Government Departments were said to be involved and officials of the Ministry of Health were said to have been already interviewed. I should like to state categorically that, so far as my Department is concerned—and this has been verified with Scotland Yard itself—there is no vestige of foundation for the imputation so clearly conveyed in this irresponsible allegation. All newspapers were immediately so informed.
On 20th December, the Secretary of my Department after investigation wrote to the editor of the paper and asked for an immediate correction of the statement and an apology. The assistant editor replied, in the editor's absence, and promised a reply within a day or so. No further reply was received, and on 5th January another letter was sent to the editor. An acknowledgment said that inquiries were being made, and promised a reply at the earliest opportunity. The Secretary of my Department wrote again on 10th January, saying that he would imagine that the inquiries would have been made before the statement was published, and therefore again asking for an early answer.
On 13th January, he was informed that steps had been taken to verify the reliability of the sources from which the information was obtained, and that the investigations showed no reason why the statements published should be corrected. It will be seen that no evidence of any kind has been vouchsafed and no justification of the statements attempted, and, so far as the "Daily Graphic" is concerned, my officials are left under the stigma of imputations which I again assert are baseless.
Mr. Churchill: It is quite clear from the statement which the Minister has volunteered that the onus in this matter lies very directly upon the newspaper concerned.
Mr. Bevan: It will be clear that in the last answer sent by the editor of this paper he does not say that the information obtained was correct. He merely says that the sources were verifiable and reliable, so that he once more dodges the necessity of providing the evidence
340
upon which the statement was based. I think it is quite intolerable that the officials of a great Department should rest for one whole month under a stigma that the editor of a newspaper is too cowardly to confirm.
Mr. Driberg: Although I believe that the Royal Commission on the Press has now ceased taking evidence, it has not yet reported. Would my right hon. Friend consider forwarding to the Royal Commission details of this case to which he has drawn the attention of the House—this most irresponsible example of yellow journalism by one of the most vicious anti-Government newspapers?
Mr. Bevan: Certainly, I will consider sending this information to the Press Commission. I have always been of the view that the daily conduct of the newspapers in some respects has provided all the raw material that the Commission required.
Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of the fact that it is abundantly apparent that the editor is sheltering from apologising for this scurrilous attack which was published as a headline on their front page, behind a defective law of libel, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of calling the attention of those who are considering the amendment of the law of libel to this matter with a view to making it actionable to libel a public authority.
Mr. Bevan: I am quite sure they will be made very well aware of the facts of this case.
Mr. Speaker: Personal statements ought not to lead to irregular Debates. A statement has been made and should not be allowed to lead on to making all kinds of various charges and suggestions which I can assure the House are not really proper to our procedure. The Department has made its defence; the Minister has made a defence of his Department; and now, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the onus is on the other side.
Mr. Hale: On a point of Order. Is it not well within the rights, privileges and responsibilities of this House to point the moral in a case like this where opportunity has been given to a newspaper of taking the proper course, where that proper course has been refused and where

341
a gross imputation has been made not only upon the Ministry of Health, but indirectly on the public administration of this country?
Mr. Speaker: Personally, I think the dignified course now is to leave the matter where it is and let public opinion judge.
Mr. Michael Foot: May I have permission to ask a specific question? Is it not the case that the proprietor of this newspaper stated before the Royal Commission that it was the practice of his newspapers, the Kemsley newspapers——
Mr. Speaker: There was a question before which I allowed, actually by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) which made some comments on a Royal Commission which is now sitting. We may not comment on what is happening before a Royal Commission. If the hon. Member for Devonport is going to comment on something which is done before a Royal Commission which is now sitting and which is still sub judice, that is a matter which is out of Order and I ought not to allow it.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of Order. Am I to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that the Chair is assuming a new duty in expressing an ex parte view that Questions may or may not be dignified? May I venture, with the utmost respect to you, Sir, to submit that if the Chair is assuming that responsibility it would be assuming a responsibility which has not been entrusted before by this House in surrendering its privileges to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting I was expressing an ex parte view. I hope I was expressing the honest and proper view of the House of Commons. I will leave it at that.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You said the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport; I presume you meant the hon. Member for Devonport.
Mr. Speaker: It was the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport. I remember the incident quite well. If he will ask me I will show it to him later.

BILL PRESENTED
  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  Mr. Speaker"to make further provision with respect to the powers of the Board of Trade to give guarantees in connection with overseas transactions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." presented by Mr. H. Wilson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bottomley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. SpeakerProceedings in Committee on Minister of Food (Financial Powers) [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, ETC., BILL
  3.46 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a very dull Bill. I must confess that when I myself read it for the first time it was once more borne in upon me that it is not given to the Law Officers
  "the applause of listening senates to command."
  I sometimes wished after I had read this Bill, that somebody sometime would entrust to the Law Officers one of those more exciting and contentious Bills like another I see on the Order Paper today, the Water (Scotland) Bill, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I could really let ourselves go.
  I am afraid this is not such an occasion. This is one of those modest, non-controversial little Bills so fitting to the character of Law Officers, which from time to time are entrusted to us. It is indeed a very little Bill. It does very little and it does it, I hope, very quickly indeed. It pretends to accomplish no great reform in our legal administration, but it cuts away just a little of the dead wood which surrounds far too much the living tree of our Statute law. Its main proposal, although there are some subsidiary points in the Bill, is to abolish the Stamp Duty, already almost negligible, which is paid on practising certificates taken out by solicitors.
  Those who pursue the great and honourable calling of a solicitor have to take out each year a practising certificate. That certificate could be refused by those who have it in power to grant it where the solicitor concerned has been guilty of some disciplinary offence or, I think, where during the course of the past year—and this is a risk to which members of my profession are especially exposed—he has been made bankrupt or driven mad. We do not propose to abolish the necessity for solicitors to obtain practising certificates in that way, but what we recommend to the House in this Bill is that they should no longer be required to pay Stamp Duty on those certificates.
  344
  The position in regard to that is that a long time ago—I think in the 18th century—a Stamp Duty, which amounted to £9 a year in the case of solicitors practising in the London and Edinburgh areas and £6 a year elsewhere, had to be paid on the taking out of the certificate. In 1941 an additional burden of a different kind was imposed upon solicitors, and it was one peculiar to that profession. They were required to make an annual contribution to a compensation fund from which grants could be made to persons who might have suffered loss through some malpractice on the part of a solicitor; and, in addition, they were required to employ at their own expense accountants who would certify each year the accounts of their practices. In 1947 it occurred to the legislature to make some quid pro quo for that additional burden by reducing the Stamp Duty on taking out the certificate.
  It would, no doubt, have been abolished at that time but for technical and procedural difficulties which would have resulted in the necessity for amending other Statutes, and which apparently would have had the effect of converting the Finance Bill into a non-money Bill, which would have produced constitutional consequences which were not thought at that time by the Chancellor to be justified by the importance of the innovation. What was done in 1947 was to reduce the duty, already quite small, to a twentieth of what it previously had been. It is now a duty which is quite insignificant so far as its value to the Revenue is concerned, and is, I suppose, merely tiresome and annoying to those who each year are called upon to pay it. What we propose in this Bill is to abolish it altogether. Practising certificates will still be required, but no duty will be paid upon them.
  We also propose to take the opportunity provided by this Bill of repealing a number of Statutes or statutory provisions which have long since fallen into desuetude with regard to those whose practice in the law has been distinguished by some form of specialised title. Some of those titles are themselves ancient and absolete, and I must confess that I had to look into the books to see what they were all about. The first one is the title of "Conveyancer." That title has been applied in

  345
  the past by Statute to persons who, being neither barristers nor solicitors, employed themselves only in the preparation of deeds. That has ceased to exist as a separate profession. Conveyancing is, of course, normally done now by solicitors or by barristers, and they will continue to do it, and there is no reason now for any statutory privilege to be given to those who, in years gone past, were entitled to practise as conveyancers without being barristers or solicitors.
  Then there are the "special pleaders." The term "special pleader" will still be available as a term of abuse which Members on one side of the House can direct against Members on the other side of the House—with justification, of course, only from this side of the House; but it ceases to have a statutory or legal significance. It used to be used in respect of those who devoted themselves in the main to the drafting of pleadings in Common Law matters and to appearing, not in open court and as advocates, but in precedural matters before judges in chambers.
  That phrase will go, along with that special phrase "Draftsmen in Equity." Where the barrister concerned was dealing with Chancery matters, he was called, not a "special pleader," but a "Draftsman in Equity." Barristers will still be entitled, if they so desire, to call themselves by those names if they want to indicate the special kind of work they are holding themselves out to do, but they will have no special statutory privileges beyond those which are accorded under the law to barristers as such.
  Finally, we propose in this Bill—and this is a matter to which it may be necessary to give a little consideration on Committee stage—to abolish the necessity for notaries public to take out special practising certificates as such. The office of a notary public is a very ancient one. They were the original scribes of the Roman law, and they are appointed even today under a Statute of Henry VIII by the Court of Faculties, which is presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Previously they were appointed by the Pope.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: What are they?
  The Attorney-General: That is what I wanted to know, and so I looked it up in the dictionary, and I found that they
  346
  were officers who took note of anything which might concern the public. One would have thought from that that at present they must be very busy people, but that was, indeed, an inadequate description of them. They have other functions, and important ones, which are in rather more specialised directions than that.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Is there really any reason for their existence at all? I must declare a financial interest in this, for I am a commissioner for oaths. Could not the work be done by commissioners for oaths? My point is, that this is virtually a hereditary profession. It is not passed on from father to son, but from solicitor to articled clerk.
  The Attorney-General: It would be out of Order for me on this Bill to deal with that aspect of the matter, because in this Bill it is not proposed to abolish the office. I would hesitate to say that it was not a useful office. Out of 523 of these gentlemen 500 are solicitors, and it is generally an office which is performed—and I think that it is increasingly the case—by practising solicitors, but it is a little specialised. Their task, as I understand, is not merely to attest documents, as commissioners for oaths may do, but actually to prepare deeds and other legal and commercial documents with a view to their being used in foreign places and conforming to the foreign law, when these involve qualifications which are quite specialised, and in some cases, as I am instructed, very high qualifications indeed.
  Then, in addition, some of them are required to translate legal documents into the languages of foreign law or from those languages into the language of our own law. Then they prepare all sorts of mercantile documents. The only one that I remember by name is a "Bottomry Bond." They also deal with the preparation of ships' protests. I think that they do discharge an important function in the mercantile and commercial life of the country. It is skilled work, and high qualifications, whether general, or those of a solicitor, appear to be required for it. In modern times, I am told, they no longer carry the badge of office which, in the Middle Ages, they used to have, which was an ink horn and pen case suspended by a silken cord

  347
  from their girdles. That was the badge of office which led Cave to say of them what, I gather, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) would wish to say of them, "'Away with him, I say. Hang him with his pen and ink-horn about his neck'."
  Mr. Hale: Was that not said of all lawyers?
  The Attorney-General: That was, in fact, about a notary who had this badge of office with which he might be hanged at once. We do not want to hang them. We do not think there is any necessity for taking that step in regard to them. We want to save them—and this appears reasonable, though I think we shall have to look at it in Committee, perhaps—we want to save them from the necessity of taking out a separate practising certificate, bearing in mind that the very great and increasing majority already take out practising certificates as solicitors. But the effect of the Bill—I hope that it will not unduly disappoint the hon. Member for Oldham—is that we shall still be able to say, as was said to the Merchant of Venice,
  "Go with me to a notary; seal me there Your single bond."
  I hope that the competition notaries will provide in that respect will not seriously injure the commissioners for oaths.
  4.0 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I must apologise to the House for the unfortunate absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) who cannot be here as early as this, and, therefore, not being an expert in this matter, I would merely say that we on these Benches welcome the Bill because it seems, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is very dull, to effect a useful purpose. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is rather complaining that he had a dull job to do, must remember that life is a question of ups and downs, and laughter and tears follow one another. I understand from the public Press that he had anything but a dull time just before Christmas, so perhaps this is the penalty for that slight change in his functions.
  This Bill really follows from the Finance Bill, when we discussed the
  348
  matter at some length, and I think that, at that time, it was the universal view of the House that this was one of those tiresome little payments which had very good reasons historically, but which it is no longer necessary to exact in these days. The amount of money lost to the Treasury in consequence was negligible, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, owing to purely technical reasons in this House, it could not then be entirely abolished. All that the Bill purports to do is to complete the process which we started last year. As the House has already given its approval, so to speak, in principle that these charges should disappear, it seems only right that we should now carry the matter to its logical conclusion.
  With regard to the future of notaries public, I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his research, and for the charming way in which he described their past and present functions. It is just as well, I think—and I believe he agrees with me—that unless there is an overwhelming reason for abolishing some historic office or tradition we should let it remain. It does no harm. It is quite true that they do not perform the same function as they did five hundred years ago, but, then, neither do we in this House, nor do lots of other people. It would be a pity to sweep them away, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that there is some value in keeping these ancient offices. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill does not in fact do away with them.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to do away with this minor expenditure, although it has not always been minor. In the past it must have been very tiresome, especially for the younger members of the profession, but now, as a result of last year's Act, it is such a minute sum that it might just as well be swept away. Therefore, I can on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, who knows far more about this matter than I can possibly know, welcome this Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I personally am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not here because he is one who has consistently advocated this provision, and

  349
  the provision in the Budget, which came at the same time, and which is a much more important one. I cannot completely accept the invitation of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to agree with him. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General enjoyed his pre-Christmas studies of the working of private enterprise, but I think that he ought to regard the few minutes speech which he has made this afternoon as a matter for far greater pride than he expressed.
  This is a fundamental and important point of principle in Labour Party policy. The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Chancellor of the Exchequer did abolish in the Budget, the very heavy and almost prohibitive stamp duty imposed on the articles of solicitors. That duty was £80, and no one who could not put up £80 had any hope of becoming a solicitor. That was an absolute bar, and a money bar which kept the profession completely closed to the overwhelming majority of the members of the working class and the poorer class.
  The result now—and I want to emphasise this—is that there is virtually no money bar which stands in the way of entering my particular branch of the legal profession. Premiums can still be asked for, but I hope that this action will tend to abolish the whole business of requiring premiums in order to enter an occupation or profession. Although premiums can still be asked for, I think it is fair to members of my profession to say that they rarely are asked for in these days. A great number of people are quite willing to accept articled clerks without asking for a premium. If these two steps are taken, it will make the profession reasonably accessible to anyone wishing to enter it. There are a good many reasons why people would not wish to enter it, but I will not go into them now.
  May I say a word or two about another matter of importance? I have no particular desire to abolish historical occupations or to reduce the number of ancient dignitaries but, as I understand it, the position of a notary public is a very special one. One becomes a notary public by two means. By chance one may happen to be articled to a notary public, in which case the ordinary process of becoming a solicitor substantially
  350
  entitles one also to become a notary public. Whatever one's capacity one finds one's self, willy-nilly, a notary public if one is articled to a notary public. He may be a partner of half a dozen people who are not, but that does not matter. If one picks him in the lottery of life one becomes a notary public whether one wishes it or not.
  By that means without any linguistic test or academic test or any test of knowledge of ancient history, and even without being asked to draw a bottomry bond at all, one can become a notary public. That is not, in my view, the way in which anyone should qualify for any profession. I suggest that in the Committee stage of this Bill we might discuss this point with the proper professional authorities to see whether the proper professional functions of a notary public which in fact——
  The Attorney-General: I should perhaps have told the House that this Bill has been very fully discussed with the professional authorities—the Bar Council and the Law Society—and I am informed that both approved of its contents. I should not like the hon. Member to think that that had not been done, or to think that by the way I introduced the Bill to the House, I did not attach much importance to it. What appeared to me to be the point was that the real principle—and I agree the most important principle—about the Stamp Duty had been accepted and adopted by the House last year, and that this was merely the technical implementation of a principle which had in fact already become part of our life.
  Mr. Hale: I suggest that the probable explanation of why the Law Society have not made this suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that in their collective wisdom they never thought of it. I should, therefore, be glad it my observations were called to their attention for their reflection and consideration, and I hope that as a result, representations may be made to him to enable him to reconsider the matter in the course of the Committee stage. I thank him for the Bill.
  4.9 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The Attorney-General is always fathering infants in this House and telling us that

  351
  he is introducing a tiny little Bill. I do not think that this is at all a little Bill for the simple reason that it shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to give up some of the money which he is taking from the oppressed classes of this country. For that reason I think that it is a very significant Bill. I desire to ask the Attorney-General a question to which he cannot possibly give me a full answer. Perhaps, however, if I put it to him he might be able to give us a very small answer, in keeping with his usual practice. Will he undertake on behalf of the Government to say that it is the intention not only to deal with solicitors, on whom this injustice has so long been prolonged, but to extend this principle to others of the professional classes who are having a very desperate time? I ask the Attorney-General whether he will reply to the question, even if he cannot do so with a clear conscience.
  The Attorney-General: I hesitate to answer that question because I have not all the information before me, but I do not think journalists pay any Stamp Duty, nor do dramatic critics.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I, in common with all other hon. Members, welcome this Bill which, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is merely carrying out the policy enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous Budget. I rise only for the purpose of saying a word or two about the subject of notaries public. I am not sure that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) really appreciated the point. I do not think any of us want to see the abolition of what is an historic office, not only of some importance in this country but also of some international importance. For myself, I should prefer to see a considerable extension of the number of notaries public. The point is that the office of notary public, one of great antiquity, is an office of international recognition; there are notaries public throughout the world. It so happens that there are many more notaries public in countries like America, and in some of the Continental countries of Europe, than there are in England.
  As a matter of international custom, there are certain documents which. When
  352
  required for use in foreign countries, have to be witnessed before a notary public. From time to time I come across documents which have to be witnessed in England before a notary public because they are required for production in some foreign country. In this country the office of notary public has become very exclusive, and the number of notaries public is very limited; whereas in the United States of America one finds, not exactly that notaries public grow on trees, but that in nearly every legal office not merely the qualified members of the firm—be they barristers or solicitors—but also almost every clerk in the office is a notary public in the sense that he is qualified to witness documents required outside the United States of America. I do not think it has ever been suggested that that extension of the qualification of notary public has been any debasement of the office.
  In this country the number of notaries public has become, by some accident—perhaps because it has been the preserve of certain families and has descended from generation to generation—extremely limited. Outside London it is often difficult for people who have to sign a document required abroad to find a notary public. If documents could be regarded as international currency if witnessed before a solicitor or commissioner for oaths, it would be a simple matter. The point therefore arises, not necessarily on this Bill but on the next occasion when this matter is being inquired into, whether it might not be convenient for the inhabitants of this country—not only the commercial community but all who are concerned with international relations—that some consideration should be given to the modernisation of the old practice which required these documents to be witnessed before a notary public. I hope it might be possible by some simple machinery to extend the office of notary public, either to all solicitors or to all commissioners for oaths, in order that when these occasions arise there may not be, as there sometimes is at present, difficulty in complying with the requirements of foreign law.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]

  MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill, which is another small Bill, is to meet a point made by the Public Accounts Committee in their Third Report of the Session 1946–47. The Public Accounts Committee expressed doubts as to the powers of the Ministry of Food to enter into commitments beyond the end of December, 1950. The significance of that date is that it is the date on which the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act expires. The issue was whether a commitment involving a financial commitment beyond that date was covered by the powers of the Ministry as they are today. This Bill seeks to put that beyond doubt by providing that money which will have to be used to pay for foodstuffs, for example, or any other suitable commodity brought into the country under a commitment extending beyond that date, shall be provided by this House.
  The issue was really first considered in 1932 when the House decided, after some discussion I understand, that a Department exercising continuing functions which extended beyond the current year—functions which involved financial commitment—needed specific statutory cover. The Public Accounts Committee agreed that that decision, as it were, that understanding, was suspended, as I have said before, for the currency of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. But in respect of a commitment which extended beyond that it might not be covered, and it was therefore held by the Government that it would be only right and proper to bring in this short Measure to put the point beyond doubt. So much for the formal side of the Bill.
  The only other thing I wish to do in commending the Bill to the House is to add a word or two on the non-formal issue, the issue of substance that these contracts run for a term of years—longterm contracts as they are sometimes called, though their length varies a good deal. We have entered into a good number of contracts, and as this Bill provides an opportunity to do that I think a word
  354
  of justification on the substantial score of the principle of the contracts is needed.
  There are in existence today some 40 of these contracts of varying terminal dates; they vary from one up to 10 years. Their provisions also are very various. Many of them contain annual price reviews; others price variations within a given amount, say 7½ per cent. upwards or downwards in each year; some of them are for fixed quantities of produce; some are for the exportable surplus of the country with whom the contract is made and others for a fixed proportion of the exportable surplus, say 95 per cent., or something of that sort. However, varying as the actual terms of these contracts are, they can all be covered by certain general principles, and if I am asked what are the objects we seek to serve in making these contracts I should say they are mainly two.
  In present conditions, the first object of these long or medium-term contracts is to increase the world production of foodstuffs. How do we seek to do that? We believe that these instruments do play today quite an indispensable and vital part in securing the increase which is needed in world food production by giving the primary producers a reasonable measure of security. We believe that that is profoundly necessary because of the particularly bitter experience of the primary producers, for example, in the British Commonwealth and all over the world for that matter, in the period between the wars, when the only effect of increasing their production was in many cases their own financial ruin. We do not believe that we shall get the primary producers of the world to increase their production unless we give them some reasonable measure of security.
  The second purpose is almost equally important, and it is combined with the avoidance of what I would call the astronomical food prices today. We believe that it can be quite definitely shown that these contracts have prevented, and still do prevent, this country having to pay prices for its essential food imports which, in many cases over the past three years, it would have been quite ruinous to pay. In proof of that we would point to the rise in prices of foodstuffs which have not been covered by these contracts, and in many cases the prices

  355
  which have been paid by other producers for food which we have secured under these contracts.
  Therefore, when we bring those two prices together, the aim and object of the contracts, or their pattern as it were, is always the same. It is the nature of the bargain entered into between producer and consumer and buyer and seller, with the seller getting a degree of security he would not get from a day-to-day transaction on the market, and the purchaser paying a lower price than he would by buying day to day on the market. We believe that is a reasonable bargain adjusted as I say, in very many different variations, but the fact of that bargain being struck in no fewer than 40 instances today is a profoundly satisfactory one to both parties in the present state of the world.
  There is no doubt that the producer, if he is willing, as some producers have been, to forgo this element of security, can in some cases get a higher price if he does not mind the risk in a year or so when the price may come down to a ruinous extent He can charge whatever the traffic will bear today, but we have suggested, and with great success, to all these producers that that is really not in their interests as it is not in ours. It is not in our interests to pay the very high prices that the traffic will bear for two reasons—for the obvious one that we cannot afford it above all where dollars are concerned, and the more controversial reason, that the price the traffic would bear—the natural price at which a commodity would be sold today—in the present condition of supply and demand would not be the best price to induce the maximum production. If I turn for a moment from the language of the trader, the catchword which I have used "above the price that the traffic would bear" would in economic terminology be called the short-term equilibrium price—the price which would be reached by the present state of supply and demand with supply inelastic on the short term.
  I for one was greatly struck and encouraged by a recent statement from a high economic authority on what would be the likely effect of holding the price below that short-term equilibrium price and nearer at any rate to what we imagine the long-term equilibrium price, based on
  356
  the real costs of production today. That in the opinion of important economic authorities, theoretically at any rate, is a sound thing to do, just as it must seem a sound practical thing to do. I am referring to the remarks made on this subject of the success of long-term contracts by Sir Hubert Henderson in his address to the British Association last summer. The passage I have in mind is:
  "If it is a case of a large excess of demand over supply, the short-term equilibrium price may be very high indeed, much higher than is useful in stimulating additional production. For an exorbitant price does not stimulate production appreciably more than a good price; it frequently stimulates it less. Indeed it is a well-established paradox that an excessive price sometimes leads to a decline in output, because many classes of producers are disposed to work less hard when an accustomed income can be earned with less exertion. On the other hand, the disadvantages of an exorbitant price, or in more popular language, a profiteering price, may he very great."
  That seems to me a theoretical justification of the long-term contract between a reasonable producer and a reasonable consumer, by which the price is held somewhere between a short and a long-term equilibrium price.
  No one can doubt that we have been and are still in a world situation with very great maladjustment between supply and demand, and it has been wise, wherever we can, to make a long-term contract which is holding the price between those two points. The long-term contract is not the only way of doing it, but it is the most useful and potent instrument for effecting that purpose. I was interested to note that, the British Government is not alone in taking this view and setting a value on these arrangements. I was very struck by a passage in the recent interim report of O.E.E.C. on the general European Recovery Programme, which was recently made to E.C.A. I will read a few words of that report to the House if I may:
  "One factor limiting agricultural output is the memory of the economic uncertainty and the instability of agricultural markets in the pre-war period. The assurance of stable market may be a powerful influence not only in encouraging production, but also in directing it in accordance with the needs of the consuming public and of the economic situation. On the international aspect, as far as supplies in international trade are concerned, bilateral negotiations afford the most effective present method of implementing a policy of guaranteed markets; in return for its guarantee of a market the purchasing country should have

  357
  some assurance that supplies would be forthcoming to the extent required. The United Kingdom has already indicated that it is prepared to consider further contracts with participating countries for essential foodstuffs and it is expected that other countries will be prepared to enter into similar agreements. Guaranteed markets are of particular value in stimulating production and exports from overseas territories."
  In that useful and authoritative report we see that these instruments are recognised as thoroughly valuable in the present world situation.
  Two criticisms have recently been made of them. I do not attach much importance to the first but the second is more weighty. The first is that a large number of private individual importers competing with each other could today import the supplies more cheaply. That seems to me a most inherently improbable statement. It might be different in a different situation but in one in which supply is markedly less than demand it can hardly be that a number of competing buyers will bid down the price. I will quote Sir Hubert Henderson on that. He writes:
  "It is not monopoly but competition which forces up prices most in conditions of shortage."
  That must surely be obvious. When to a natural shortage of supplies is added the fact that in many cases the producers have unified their selling arrangements and competing private buyers face a united front of sellers, I tremble to think of the prices they may be forced to pay. In facing such a selling organisation as that of the Argentine, a multitude of unassisted buyers would not stand much chance.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is not the right hon. Gentleman misleading the House a little? He is assuming that these competitive buyers all advance at the same time on the one country producer. Undoubtedly the competitors would then send the price up, but competitors who are able to buy in different parts of the world will surely bring down the price?
  Mr. Strachey: I cannot follow the hon. Member. If we had buyers competing against each other for our meat, they would certainly have to go to the Argentine, perhaps not for all of it but at any rate for that portion of it which we buy from the Argentine. I cannot see how they could avoid tending to bid the
  358
  price up against each other. I call in aid there our experience with the European buyers who go to the Argentine and bid the price up against each other most severely to levels far in excess of those by no means low levels which we pay.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply the same arguments to wheat? In that case, before the war buyers all over the world visited countries wherever a harvest was being gathered and picked up small parcels of wheat here, there and everywhere, so reducing the price, instead of having one or two large sources of supply only as at present.
  Mr. Strachey: It is a question of the equilibrium between demand and supply. The hon. Member will no doubt recall the words of Sir Hubert Henderson:
  "It is not monopoly but competition which forces up prices most in conditions of shortage."
  In a condition of shortage, a multiplicity of buyers, whichever market they frequent, tends to force up the price, but the geographical point of the market to which they go would have very little to do with that.
  Mr. Baxter: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to the House that there are no foodstuffs in the world today which private purchasers could not buy at a lower price at the present moment than the Government pay by bulk contract?
  Mr. Strachey: That would be a sweeping assurance. I should very much like the hon. Member to name one. There are certain commodities which it is much more suitable to leave to purchase by private firms. We leave many to purchase by private firms. The most recent example is that of lemons which we have turned over entirely to purchase by private firms. We do so in such cases where the commodity is a small one or is not suitable to bulk purchase in any case or in which the supply and demand situation has changed and competition between a multiplicity of buyers is much less dangerous. However, I cannot for a moment believe that in the present world situation of supply and demand a multiplicity of buyers would not tend to bid up the price. That seems to me to be the most elementary economics, and that is all I will say at this point, but I would

  359
  qualify all this by saying that in the long-term arrangements or the comparatively long-term arrangements with which this Bill deals, the making of such contracts is not necessarily imcompatible with using private buyers in various ways, and that is in fact done.
  Cereals have been mentioned. Cereals are bought by private firms acting as the agents of the Ministry of Food or the Government. Sugar is another commodity bought in that way. There are degrees of freedom, as it were, which the private buyer may have under overriding governmental arrangements ranging from the arrangements with which the Government themselves actually buy on its own account to the use of private firms simply as agents, or on the other extreme, to fixing the total, which it may be necessary to fix for currency reasons, within which the private trader can act entirely freely. Therefore, the arrangements with which this Bill is concerned do not necessarily presuppose any actual method of buying. I would mention the point—it does not need elaboration because it is so obvious—that these arrangements are almost indispensable so long as there exists the imperative need to economise in purchases in particular markets. Thus where we have to pay dollars or other scarce or other hard currencies—and it is possible to divert purchases from those markets to softer markets, undoubtedly the long-term contract is a most useful instrument in that very necessary process.
  I come now to the second criticism of these contracts, to which I attach great weight. It is said that although there may be a case, and may have been a case for these contracts over the last three years—if I had time I could make an overwhelming case in terms of pounds, shillings and pence for the savings those contracts have made to the British nation over those three years—yet we have reached the peak of world prices for foodstuffs and other primary products. It is said that there is now a chance of those prices turning downwards and it would be rash to enter into long-term contracts with, it is implied, large fixed prices which might involve us in later years in paying as much above the world market price as we have undoubtedly been paying below the world price up to now.
  We must take that point into most serious consideration. I shall make one
  360
  or two brief comments on it. First of all, I do not take the view that it would be in the best or long-term interests, of the country to see a catastrophic fall in the prices of world staple foodstuffs and other primary materials. The price of wheat may again fall to 50 cents a bushel as it was before the war, but, attractive as that may sound in our ears today, if such a fall took place quickly and catastrophically I would not agree that it was in the best interests of the country. We imported wheat at 50 cents a bushel in 1938, but along with it we imported a great many million unemployed. Any catastrophic fall in primary producers' prices of that sort would inevitably react most detrimentally on great industrial and exporting countries such as this one.
  It is true, of course, that long-term contracts on prices, and national agreements in general tend to prevent those sudden catastrophic falls in primary prices, but I believe that to be in the real and long-term interest of this country. It is precisely to safeguard against such catastrophic falls that we give a quid pro quo to the primary producer in return for his selling to us today below the price which he could get on a free market. On the other hand, a moderate and steady decline in primary producers' prices—above all, food prices—is to the great interest of this country, and it is most important that the long-term arrangements which we enter into today should do nothing to prevent such a steady and moderate fall in the prices of the primary foodstuffs and other primary products which we have to buy.
  As the House can imagine, I am exceedingly anxious that no obstacle should be put in the way of such a process as that, and if the House will examine from time to time the contracts and arrangements we enter into, it will be seen that the greatest care is taken that they do not prevent such moderate and reasonable falls as that in world prices. They contain many safeguards. In some there is an annual price review clause but, as in the case of our contracts with Australia and New Zealand with regard to dairy produce, and in the case of New Zealand meat too, which we have just entered into, they contain a clause that the price shall not vary more than a certain percentage each way in any given year.

  361
  There are various methods by which we can safeguard, and must safeguard, against the effect of these arrangements being to stabilise the prices which we should pay for our primary products at what might prove in future years to be an unnecessarily high level. The House may rest assured that so long as I, at any rate, hold my present responsibilities, I shall always bear in mind as perhaps the greatest economic danger to which this country could expose itself would be to pin the price of its imports at a high and fixed level, while the prices to be realised by its manufactured exports were left free to find their own level. That, of course, would be a most hazardous thing to do, and one which we shall avoid at all costs.
  Having said those words on the underlying substance of the Bill, and having explained to the House the occasion for it, I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill deals in its terms with what is a narrow but an important matter. The position of the Ministry of Food in relation to long-term contracts has hitherto been unsatisfactory, and it is vitally important, if any proper Parliamentary control of expenditure is to prevail, that Ministers should only spend money with proper statutory authority for it. Otherwise, any Minister could embark upon any type of expenditure which appealed to him.
  It was, of course, three centuries ago that Parliament acquired effective control over taxation, but it is only much more recently that Parliament has sought to achieve effective control over the expenditure of public moneys. The rules of practice in relation to this matter are now fairly well established and defined. The position is that where expenditure is both substantial and recurrent, express statutory authority should define the powers of the Minister to spend public money, and it is only where the expenditure of public money is either non-recurrent or not substantial in amount, that the procedure by way of estimate or supplementary estimate, followed by the ex post facto authorisation of the Appropriation Act should be followed by public Departments. The Public Accounts Committee, since 1932, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, has made it clear that
  362
  in its view, where long-term commitments for expenditure continuing over a period of years are entered upon, there should always be statutory authority.
  In paragraph 12 of the Public Accounts Committee Report for the 1946–47 Session the matter is stated as follows:
  "The Public Accounts Committee of 1932 … and the Committee of 1933 … considered cases of expenditure out of Votes of Parliament under the sole authority of Appropriation Acts. They expressed the view that, as a matter of general principle, where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a Government Department, particularly where such functions may involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given financial year, it is proper, subject to certain recognised exceptions, that the powers and duties to be exercised should he defined by specific statute."
  We went on to say:
  "The Treasury undertook to do their best to comply with the wish of the Committees that, when this power has been exercised to authorise continuing grants, opportunity should be taken to insert regularising clauses in any appropriate legislation which may be in contemplation."
  The views of the Committee were expressed in that year, in paragraphs 95–97 of their report, on this question of the long-term contracts of the Ministry of Food, and the Treasury—in their minute of January last year upon this matter—after there had been some discussion as to whether or not the Minister of Food had statutory authority under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act of 1946—went on to say:
  "My Lords"—
  that is, my Lords of the Treasury—
  "readily agree that the established practice referred to in paragraph 12 of the Committee's report requires that the powers of the Ministry of Food to incur expenditure on long-term commitments should be defined by statute at the first convenient opportunity; and as the Committee were informed, the Ministry are now engaged on the preparation of such legislation."
  So this Bill, in its narrow aspect, meets the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee and brings the position of the Ministry of Food properly into line with what has now become the established practice so far as Government expenditure and Government commitments on long-term contracts are concerned. It is a good Bill, not only because it validates what the Ministry of Food may do for the future in this connection, but it also validates what has been done in the past. Its single Clause says:

  363
  "Any sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil any contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of his functions as to food and animal feeding stuffs, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current … shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  So, in its narrow aspect, this Bill is a good Bill.
  We do not regard this as a very suitable occasion upon which to debate the larger issues connected with these long-term contracts, and we shall seek an early opportunity in the future for a discussion upon this subject. We were horrified to see the Press statement issued by the Ministry of Food yesterday in relation to the meat contracts with the Argentine involving a reduction in the meat ration from 1s. to 10d. per week, and I cannot share the somewhat complacent views expressed by the Minister upon these questions of long-term contracts when we get an example such as we saw in yesterday morning's newspapers. As I understand the position, we paid £100 million in advance for the supply of Argentine meat for the current financial year. We gave them a douceur of £10 million not relating to the price of meat at all, and, having paid in advance, we now find to our distress that the contract quantities are not going to be supplied.
  When we look back to the Debate which took place on 23rd February last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained this agreement to the House, I must say that his forecasts have fallen very far short of fulfilment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, having explained that we were going to pay this £110 million down, went on to say:
  "The net result is that we have promised the Argentine to use our best endeavours to facilitate the supply of this list of goods which they urgently require, and we have got from them the guarantee of delivery of the foodstuffs … which we urgently require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1684.]
  By paying in advance, the right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that we were getting a guarantee of a fulfilment of the contract. Of course, one of the great disadvantages of this system of inter
  364
  Governmental long-term contracts is that there is no authority who can enforce the bargain. Where private traders are concerned there is usually some court to which a case can be taken for breach of contract, but in the case of these inter-governmental contracts there is no authority, no court, nobody who can say that this contract ought to be and must be fulfilled. That is one of the outstanding disadvantages of this system of long-term inter-Government contracts.
  At the same time, of course, we must recognise that some system of long-term contracts is an indispensable element in any effective policy for colonial development. It is quite clear that, though the contracts may not be for fixed prices over long terms, some form of undertaking to purchase on minimum quantity contracts and at prices subject to annual review must be an indispensable element in the development of the production of various foodstuffs in our own colonies. However, we shall seek an early occasion in the near future when we shall criticise the administration of the right hon. Gentleman and challenge the wisdom of some of these long term contracts which have been entered into. We shall also, of course, have something more to say about the right hon. Gentleman's regular refusal to give any details of the prices at which these contracts are negotiated at the time when they are entered into.
  In point of fact, we find that these prices always leak out, usually from the country with whom the bargain has been made, and in the second place we often find that we can in fact deduce the prices at which the right hon. Gentleman has made these contracts by an examination of the Trade and Navigation accounts. We shall have many points of criticism to bring forward on what I think will be a more appropriate occasion, namely a Supply Day. As to the Bill, we welcome it because it regularises the position of the Minister of Food and it meets the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee.
  4.55 p.m.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: I cannot let this Bill pass in silence. The Minister has referred to world shortages. I would remind him of the principle that to restrict consumption restricts production. The sooner we take off all these restrictions and controls, the bigger will

  365
  become the supply. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that if we gave a free hand to the traders in the Baltic, Mincing Lane, Manchester and Liverpool, they would not get more food at cheaper prices than he is getting under bulk purchasing?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said that we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail, but I should like to warn the Minister that if he tries to break the law of supply and demand that law will break him. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill it seems to me that we are asked to give carte blanche to a Minister for whom I have very little respect. It says:
  "It is not possible to estimate the total amount of expenditure involved."
  I think it is a very serious step for this House to take to give an almost unlimited amount of public money to a Minister with the dreadful food record that he has got. As an example, there was all his rationing of potatoes last year; there was not a shortage, yet he rushed into buying swedes and turnips.
  In case I shall be called to Order for calling a Minister names, I have taken the precaution to look this up in the Oxford Dictionary——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I must warn the hon. Gentleman that the fact that a word is in the Oxford Dictionary does not necessarily make it parliamentary.
  Sir W. Smithers: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have tried to find a suitable name for the Minister. I want to call him a mountebank. The Oxford Dictionary describes a mountebank as follows:
  "An itinerant quack who from an elevated platform appealed to his audience by means of stories, tricks, juggling, and the like, in which he was often assisted by a professional clown."
  I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but that is what it says. It ends by calling him "an impudent charlatan."
  To give this almost unlimited amount of public money to a Minister Who has had no experience of economics or business is a very grave responsibility for this House to take. I hope that my right
  366
  hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take an early opportunity of bringing the Minister to book on the whole of his bulk purchase policy.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been rather provoked into saying a few words by some of the things which the Minister himself has said. When I first saw this Measure I had considerable misgivings, but I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said about it. Personally, I dislike intensely these trading activities of the Ministry of Food and, subject to certain reservations, I dislike the Ministry of Food entering into long-term contracts. I definitely join issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the advantages accruing to this country from many of the long-term contracts into which he has entered. There is an increasing volume of evidence to the contrary. I entirely agree with the forebodings which he has expressed about the present very high level of the prices of our imports of food. It seems to me that entering into too many of these long-term contracts will do precisely that which he professes to fear. There will be no hope of a substantial reduction in food prices until we return to a system of free commodity markets. However, I appreciate that this is not the occasion on which to debate that very much wider issue. I am prepared to accept this Measure as purely technical, and I hope we shall have a very early opportunity of debating at length what I think has been the disastrous handling of our imports by this Government.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. Royle: I had no intention of participating in this Debate, and I shall not take up the time of the House for more than a few moments, but I certainly do not think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) ought to be allowed to get away with the statement he made. He used the word "clown." It would not be unfair to say that if there is one hon. Member in this House who is guilty of that kind of conduct it is the hon. Member for Orpington himself. I suggest to him, very respectfully, that some of the statements he has made this afternoon are lovely examples of clowning on his part.

  367
  I took a note of what the hon. Member said. He suggested that increased consumption would bring down prices by causing increased production. Is it possible to look at this question in that light, in present world circumstances? I wonder whether the hon. Member has ever heard about the reports of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of U.N.O. I wonder whether he has ever read a speech made in a Debate in another place by Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, who drew attention to the world situation in regard to food. To suggest that if we were able to increase our consumption in Britain that would automatically increase production throughout the world, and thereby bring down prices, seems to me to be an utterly ridiculous proposition.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite Benches that this is not an occasion for a Debate upon bulk buying, but I assure him that many of us on this side of the House can put forward very strong arguments for the policy of my right hon. Friend on this matter, and that when the occasion does arise for talking about it, we shall be able to adduce many arguments in its favour. I do not want to say anything more about it now. I feel that much of what the hon. Member for Orpington said was unworthy of a Debate in this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

  MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—(King's Recommendation signified.)
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided
  368
  by Parliament of any sums required by the said Minister to fulfil any such contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, as may be specified in the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  BROADCASTING, FAR EAST (AGREEMENT)
  5.4 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I beg to move,
  "That the Agreement, dated 7th December, 1948, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be approved."
  This Agreement provides for the British Broadcasting Corporation to construct a powerful broadcasting station on a site in Malaya and to send broadcast programmes from it when it is ready. The site of the station is at Tebrau, in the State of Johore.
  Since last August, the Corporation has, under a temporary agreement, been sending out programmes from an existing station of lower power in Singapore. This station was previously operated by the Foreign Office. The Agreement now before the House provides for the working of the low power station by the B.B.C. to continue until the new high power station is ready. The new station is expected to cover a much wider area and to make B.B.C. overseas programmes available to millions more listeners in Far Eastern countries than is now possible either by direct broadcasting from this country or by means of the low power station now in use at Singapore.
  The establishment of a broadcasting station overseas is a new departure for the B.B.C., although such a development was foreshadowed by the Royal Charter—Command Paper No. 6974—granted as from 1st January, 1947. No change is involved in Government policy towards the B.B.C., and what is in prospect is merely a means of increasing very considerably the effectiveness of reception of B.B.C. overseas programmes in their present form in the Far East.
  The objects of the Agreement I am asking the House to approve are to provide for the construction of a permanent

  369
  station and to apply to the service to be conducted by the B.B.C. the provisions applicable to the B.B.C. Overseas Services operated from this country. These provisions appear in the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement dated 29th November, 1946—(Comd. Paper No. 6975)—which was approved by the House on 11th December, 1946. The Licence and Agreement related only to stations in the British Isles and it is for this reason that a new Agreement is now necessary.
  Hon. Members will perhaps recall that the B.B.C's. Licence and Agreement required the approval of the House. Standing Orders of this House Nos. 71 and 72 provide that all contracts for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond the seas, extending over a period of years and creating a public charge, must be approved by a resolution of the House. The Agreement now before the House comes within the scope of the same Standing Orders, it being intended that the cost of the undertaking should be charged against the yearly grant-in-aid for the B.B.C. Overseas Services. I therefore ask the House to approve the Motion.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This proposal envisages, I believe for the first time, the operation of broadcasting by the B.B.C. outside the United Kingdom. It is a little unusual, indeed it is almost unique. for us to be able to congratulate His Majesty's Government on what does appear to be a singularly sensible venture. Let us hope that this will be followed up by starting direct telephone communication with Singapore and Malaya. Incredible as it may seem, it is impossible, I believe, at present, for anybody in London to telephone to Singapore or anywhere in Malaya. Undoubtedly we suffer from inadequate broadcasting facilities in the Far East. There is very little relaying of British programmes in Burma, or in other parts of the Far East and in Malaya in particular where at present such relaying would be of very great value.
  There are one or two points about the Agreement upon which we should like further information. Obviously, it is the general practice that transmitting stations, and studios and receiving stations should be some distance apart, but it would appear to raise considerable defence difficulties to have the transmitting station 20
  370
  miles away on the mainland in the State of Johore and the receiving station and studios on Singapore Island. We are near enough to the difficulties which overwhelmed us in this part of the world during the war to realise the very considerable local defence problems involved. Past actions of His Majesty's Government have not led us to believe that there is very brilliant co-ordination between different parts of the Administration. I hope that the Ministry of Defence was consulted before this particular location was decided upon. An assurance to that effect from the hon. Gentleman would be very welcome.
  It is not so much the setting up of a broadcasting station that is of paramount importance or that matters for our future influence in the world, but what is broadcast when the station is set up. I hope that local people, with local knowledge of what the people in the Far East are anxious to hear, will be given the task of devising the programmes and arranging for their transmission; that we shall not have too great an attempt to uplift people quickly or too many educational talks; that we shall remember the problems of reception and the type of people we are trying to reach, and that we shall, in the first stage at any rate, concentrate more on the entertainment side of our broadcasts, never overlooking the fundamental need throughout to try to put the British case, which we believe to be unanswerable, to the peoples of the Far East.
  I have taken the trouble to read some of the more recent broadcasts from London to this part of the world. Presumably the proposed new station is to replace this existing service At a time when there is a breakdown of authority in many parts of the Far East it is somewhat odd that recently we should have broadcast about the occasions when British trade unions had been in conflict with the law, or that a few days ago no less than two pages of script should have been broadcast in the Far Eastern programme describing in detail the unofficial London bus strike. That was scarcely a good illustration of how we manage our industrial affairs.
  Mr. Randall: But we do not want suppression of news.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course not, but where we are picking and choosing things that will give a fair impression of Britain as a country that is gradually recovering

  371
  its position in the world, it is a little strange to devote so much time to something which the official unions themselves regarded as an improper strike and which was certainly rather a humiliating incident in our post-war industrial life.
  Above all, I hope that we shall make plain our position about Communism and use the machinery of the new broadcasting facilities to make our views known to the very many millions of friends or loyal fellow-subjects in Far Eastern countries. In particular, this broadcasting station will reach the people of Indonesia. We cannot shut our eyes to the realities of the situation there. In another place, these words were uttered:
  "The action of the Dutch in Indonesia is fundamentally right. I cannot understand the British Government condemning the Dutch action as too severe——"
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must not go too wide in what he is saying. It seems to me that he is going rather wide now.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With due respect, I was quoting something that I suggest should be broadcast, and I shall explain the implication of my quotation:
  "I cannot understand the British Government condemning the Dutch action as too severe. Is it not time to ask where the Foreign Office is leading us?"
  Those are not my words, but those of a recently ennobled Peer Lord Milverton, when talking about Indonesia.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really going far too wide. I must ask him to confine himself much more to the terms of this Agreement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I conclude by saying it is essential that we should not stand, as the noble Lord said we were now doing, in palsied indecision. We should let the people of the Far East know where we stand.
  Following on that quotation I take it that I should be in Order——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of Order in quoting from a speech in another place made in this Session. He cannot, therefore, go on doing that.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was going to remind those hon. Members who listen to the Far East broadcasts, of certain recent broadcasts—I think that this will be in
  372
  Order—to the peoples for whom the new station will cater. I quoted the remarks of the noble Lord only to indicate the puzzlement and wonder that must be in the minds of the people who listen to our broadcasts. They do not know exactly where we stand on the issue that to them matters more than anything else. On 15th January we broadcast to the Far East that the Trades Union Congress was trying to eradicate Communism, and had declared war on it. That was in the Far Eastern programme, which these new proposals will partially replace. Two days later—three days ago—on 17th January, in the Chinese news bulletin, we broadcast an account from what was called "The Socialist 'New Statesman and Nation's' article, and their eulogistic tributes to the Communist leader in China, Mao Tse-Tung," even quoting in this British broadcast that:
  "Mao and his party will bring a new spirit of creative energy into Chinese life. The revolution which began in 1911 enters on its second phase in 1949."
  Thousands of listeners in the Far East must wonder where we stand on this vital issue, and how we can try to build up Western Union's resistance to Communism and at the same time undermine Western European States' resistance to Communism in the Far East.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the hon. Gentleman go one step further and give us a list of the papers which he suggests should be, and those which he suggests should not be, quoted in disseminating news?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. If we are to use this broadcasting service properly and give the Government the power, particularly that in Clause 4 (2), for which it is asking to control programmes and policies, we ought to try to make up our minds on what is the attitude of the Government to Communist infiltration in the Far East; and, having made up our minds on that attitude, to see that by using Clause 4 (2) that attitude, and that attitude alone, is conveyed as official policy to the peoples of the Far East.
  Mr. Skeffington: Is it not a fact that the quotation the hon. Gentleman has given was only one of a series of quotations which were given to illustrate opinion from a variety of sources in Great Britain?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was the only paper quoted as being a Socialist journal in that particular broadcast. The announcer made it clear that it was a Socialist paper. Listeners in the Far East, therefore, had quotations only from that paper from the Socialist benches, and could be forgiven if they thought that those views represented Socialist policy. They know that we have a Socialist Government and it was not asking very much of them to assume that it was official Government policy.
  In fairness to the recent broadcasting services, I am glad to say that prominence has been given over the Far East network to the speech made by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who was quoted two days ago in the Cantonese news bulletin and represents more adequately and accurately what our people as a whole feel about what is happening in South East Asia than some of the things to which prominence has also been given. As he said, speaking of Malaya, the British are working towards a government of the people of Malaya, by the people of Malaya and for the people of Malaya, but the Communists are working for a government of the people of Malaya by Chinese thugs, for Russian commissars. I am delighted that those robust words were quoted in the Cantonese news bulletin. I wish success to this new venture and hope that no weakness, muddle or indecision on the part of H.M. Ministers here will add to difficulties there, and we wish all whose Empire service lies in this field every possible success.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish to correct the misapprehension which might go forward that His Majesty's Government have reserved the right to be consulted about matter to be broadcast. They have the right to be consulted about the times and the languages—in other words about the ambit and the kind of broadcasting to be done but no right to be consulted about what is put over in the broadcast. That remains the responsibility of the Corporation.
  I rise to put one point only, which seems to be a point of substance. The erection and development of this broadcasting station is welcomed all over the House. It is to disseminate news, information and views of the British way of life in a world which is now becoming
  374
  a modern Tower of Babel by the use of mechanical means. It is also to be used to some extent to give a political viewpoint, not a party viewpoint, but a political approach, on matters of foreign affairs which clearly are of concern in the Far East. I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General what consultations there were with the Australian Government before this agreement was entered into.
  Mr. Hobson: The responsibilities of my right hon. Friend under the terms of the Charter include the responsibility of administering the Vote. Questions of policy come under the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Commonwealth Relations.
  Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. We are glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place and he can intervene if he wishes to do so. I am not asking this as a point of criticism, but I think it an important point. Australia's interest in this matter is as great as ours and the Empire and Commonwealth as envisaged in the speeches of hon. Members opposite has ceased to exist. There is a Socialist Government in Australia sharing our common approach and I hope the Under-Secretary will forgive me for saying that in matters where there is some little difference of opinion they are usually more progressive than we are, or they arrive at the right conclusion a few days before we do. But in general there is complete unity of approach and complete unity of view and it seems to me that Australia's concern in the islands to the north and north-west is of fundamental importance.
  If the Commonwealth approach has been neglected in this matter, I suggest that we should communicate with the Prime Minister of Australia, or the appropriate officials, because, although they have commercial broadcasting in Australia, in addition to A.B.C. they have Government control over the allocation and erection of stations and have a considerable say in the matter and if they like to take a share in the administration and responsibility they should do so. We have recognised the principle of condominium in the Pacific and I do not see why we should not do so over the air. That would be a substantial contribution to Commonwealth understanding. It

  375
  could not possibly do any harm, but could quite conceivably do a world of good.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I am heartily in favour of the idea of establishing adequate and sufficiently powerful overseas broadcasting Stations, but I am bound to ask why the Government should choose Singapore. Why do they choose Malaya? I should have thought there were a good many places in the Far East less liable to danger, internally and externally, in the years to come than Malaya. We all know what has happened in China during the last few weeks and the effect of what has happened there is to bring Burma, Malaya and Indo-China right into the front line of Communist attack. There may be very adequate technical answers to the point, but I should have supposed that Australia would be a better location, or, possibly, Ceylon. There may be technical reasons why it is not possible to choose those countries, but I should like to hear something from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain why this should be done in Malaya. I think it immensely important because we may find we have built a magnificent radio station only that it should fall into Russian-dominated hands at a later date. Therefore, the case for the choice of Singapore ought to be made in this House.
  I do not envy those who are to have charge of this job of choosing matter which may be suitable for one country but not for another. I think it would be beyond the wit of man to devise a programme common to all those countries which is not liable to criticism in respect of some. Any subsequent speaker would have no difficulty in digging out a dozen broadcasts on which he could make some point of criticism. I share the hope that this station, when built in Singapore, or wherever it is to be, will be used to propagate the British way of life and I hope we shall not carry our sense of British fair play to the point of folly in dealing with Communist propaganda. One of the tragedies of this world is that it is not the bad men who are helping Communism very often, but the good men, the men who are so fair that they give Communists an advantage of which Communists make ruthless use. I hope
  376
  the news bulletins will be vigorous and strong and that we shall recognise Communism to be what it is—the enemy of us all—and that this station will be an instrument for combating it in the Far East. I hope we shall have the case made out for the selection of Singapore and Malaya as the site for this station.
  5.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I shall do my best to answer some of the questions, even at so short notice. I was very glad to hear that in principle this decision of the Government and this Agreement is approved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on behalf of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)——
  Mr. W. J. Brown: On behalf of my party.
  Mr. Mayhew:—on behalf of his party. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was corrected on an important point by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), namely, in his reference to the use of the Government's powers in relation to the output of the B.B.C. In fact we have not taken the powers suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong for the Government to take those powers.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not going beyond what is in the Order, or trying to give a false impression. If I did so, inadvertently, I am sorry. The Agreement says in 4 (2) and 4 (3):
  "The Corporation shall consult and collaborate with the Departments so specified and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding conditions in and policies of His Majesty's Government towards the countries so prescribed and other countries as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare the broadcast programmes in the national interests."
  I did not wish to give an impression that they went further than that. The Government cannot dissociate themselves from providing background information which a broadcasting station may or may not use as it thinks fit.
  Mr. Mayhew: That gives a better picture of the position.
  The second question which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked was about consolation with the Ministry of

  377
  Defence. I can give him the assurance for which he asks. There was consultation. We have had great difficulty in choosing the site for this broadcasting station, not merely the strategical site, to which the hon. Member for Rugby referred, but the tactical site, so to speak, in the terms mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. We had the greatest difficulty in finding the site and it was largely for technical reasons that we have chosen the site which has been decided upon. I will not go into those technical reasons at length but I assure hon. Members that many of the factors mentioned were carefully considered. We are satisfied with this site, although it may have drawbacks; one was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham asked about Commonwealth consultation. The Commonwealth was informed that these decisions had been taken. My hon. Friend mentioned Australia, but it is not only Australia which will, we hope, be affected by this Agreement. There are India, Ceylon, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries quite apart from foreign countries where we hope that this radio station will have an influence. I do not think it will be practicable to run a broadcasting station with a consistent policy, a consistent attitude, with up-to-date news, etc., by a co-operative venture so to speak. I think if one is dealing with this as a practical matter Great Britain must take the lead in the conduct of it.
  Mr. Hale: The defence of the Northern Territory of Australia is very much a matter of the islands surrounding that Northern Territory. Australia has a special interest. No one was suggesting a co-operative venture, but is there any objection to offering a seat on the Board to Australia, for example?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that any views of the Australian Government on this subject will come to us. There is constant consultation on all these matters of foreign policy. That would include foreign publicity policy. I have no doubt that important matters of policy, for example the northern islands, would be a proper matter to be brought to our attention by Australia. It is the hope of the Government that this station will be a link
  378
  and a binding force between Commonwealth countries of South-East Asia in the way suggested.
  There are two main criticisms I would make of the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. The first is that his approach so far as the output of the station is concerned seems to me to be a wholly negative one. He seemed to think that this broadcasting station would have the wholly negative aim of destructive criticism of Communism in the Far East. I do not deny that it will be one of the tasks of this station to combat the misrepresentations and distortions of Communist propaganda against Britain, British democracy and the British Commonwealth in the Far East. But I hope that it will have a positive influence by projecting the achievements and aims of British democracy. We have a fine story to tell in the Far East, where there is great interest in Britain and British democracy. We have only to look at certain independent countries to see that the influence of Britain from the economic and political point of view is strong in many ways. We want to strengthen that by spreading the truth about British democracy. We do not want to begin negatively with merely destructive attacks on Communism, although we shall not hesitate to defend ourselves against unfair and unscrupulous anti-Colonial propaganda in particular which is being launched against us in the Far East.
  My second criticism of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford is that he showed scant respect for the need for objectivity in our output. That is, he criticised the B.B.C. for referring to unofficial strikes in this country and for quoting the "New Statesman and Nation." I grant him quite freely that neither unofficial strikes nor the "New Statesman and Nation" are in any way typical of our great British democracy, but the supposition that we ought to give a one-sided interpretation all the time is certainly not an attitude which I feel should be adopted. We need a little subtlety in our projection. All people who were concerned with political warfare during the war came out of it feeling that it was essential to tell the truth and be objective. In the long run it paid.
  I should be sorry to adopt the kind of policy which seemed to be foreshadowed

  379
  in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, or that the B.B.C. should lapse from their high standards of objectivity in the Far East. We hope that the B.B.C. will build up the same kind of reputation in the Far East that it has built up in Europe with its European services. If it does that, it will be doing a fine job for British democracy and for peace in the Far East.
  5.37 p.m.
  Major Bruce: There are one or two technicalities which I should like to put to the Assistant Postmaster-General. I should like to know on how many wavelengths it is proposed we shall broadcast from this station? Difficulties always arise when wavelengths are considered. As anyone in Europe knows, there is great congestion of wavelengths here, but I doubt if that would apply in the Far East. There are other problems. If one wants freedom from interference one chooses the short waves but that raises other difficulties which make it necessary to have very good receivers to get adequate reception. If one wants to broadcast by long wave, and if there is to be a sufficient range and freedom from interference, great power is needed behind the transmission. How do the B.B.C. propose to tackle these problems? Do they intend to utilise long waves, short waves or medium waves, and what methods have they adopted for securing wavelength co-ordination with the other States which are broadcasting in the same area?
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Hobson: It is difficult to answer questions of the technical character which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised. I can tell him the frequencies upon which the present low-power station at Singapore is operating, but the difficulty about the frequency upon which the new station will operate is that the allocations of frequencies are decided by international agreement. Unfortunately I cannot answer my hon. and gallant Friend because a conference is sitting at Mexico City, the purpose of which is to allocate the frequencies internationally. Until that conference has made its recommendations I am not in a position to say precisely on which wavelength the station will operate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Agreement, dated 7th December, 1948, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be approved."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ORGANISATION)
  5.39 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I hope that the Secretary of State for Air is feeling none the worse for his experiences of yesterday. I have no desire to make things more difficult for him or for the R.A.F., but there are several matters to which I wish to refer which have not been said in this House or perhaps dealt with through the medium of the Press. Much has been said recently by various retired air marshals and others who profess to know the Service, and a considerable amount of it was true. But there is real disquiet in the country at the moment among those who are in the Royal Air Force and also the civilians at large. They still remember that the Royal Air Force is the first line of defence of this country, and that if it had not been for a small number of men and one particular Command in 1940, we would not be here today discussing the Service.
  I wish to reiterate what I have said before on many occasions, that conscription on the present basis will not suit the Royal Air Force. Eighteen months service is not of real value. There are in the service more than 50 per cent. National Service men, men who are in for only 18 months. During that period they have to acquire discipline and learn the details of most complicated aircraft and ancillary equipment. I do not see how we can have an efficient service with 50 per cent. of the men serving for that short space of time. I would ask the Secretary of State to fight the battle for the Air Force with the Cabinet and to see if he can get preferential treatment for this particular Service. After all, preferential treatment has been given to the coalminers, because we want coal. Is it not equally important to have similar treatment for this fighting Service, to ensure that we have peace and to safeguard our shores?

  381
  I am unable to quote what has been said by a noble Lord in another place, but Lord Douglas quite recently said that unless something was done very quickly for the Royal Air Force it would die on its feet. That was said by a marshal of the Royal Air Force who has recently retired, and I believe that the Cabinet must give this matter their full consideration. Does the Cabinet really understand the problems of the Royal Air Force or of any of the other fighting Services? I often feel that it would be a very good thing if the Cabinet would take a holiday from this House and go to the I.D.C. for a short time and really learn something about Service matters. I am not referring to the Minister of Defence, because he has been connected with the fighting Services for a great many years. But I believe that some of the other Ministers could learn a lot if they made a particular study of our fighting Services.
  I wish to refer to the discipline in the Royal Air Force. We recognise that over the last 20 or 30 years the method of discipline and so on has changed considerably, and a very good thing too. I well remember the time when as a young cadet I was bullied by a sergeant-major and marched round the square with pack and rifle for hours on end. I do not believe that that is the right method. But we have gone to the other extreme. It may have sounded attractive when Lord Montgomery promised the troops that they should have bedside lamps; they were almost promised breakfast in bed. We do not want that.
  What we do want is a proper discipline which is fair to the individual and the Service. When I see officers and airmen walking about our towns with their caps stuck on the side of their heads, with their coats undone and grease round the collar I wonder how parents are going to look up to the Service and say, "That is what I want my boy to go into." It is quite wrong, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to impress that point upon some of his most senior officers. When they are making inspections and visiting stations they should smarten themselves up and set an example to the rest of the Service. When we see the Guards out on parade it is a great picture. The Guards have no great difficulty in obtaining recruits. I believe it would be all to the good for the Royal Air Force to
  382
  insist on smartness to achieve something of which we could be really proud.
  I do not propose to refer to "Operation Sunrise," because much has been said about it and it is comparatively old news. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of it, except to say that I think the Air Force were badly treated in the Press. There was a substance of truth in what was said. After all, the reporters were there and I imagine that they were flying in the aircraft, and to a certain extent they gave a fair report. I do say, however, that the public relations branch of the Air Ministry failed miserably on that occasion. They could quite well have got out a snap statement giving the Air Force point of view. If they were not equal to the job, the Air Ministry should have seen that competent senior officers were on the station ready to give assistance to public relations. They did themselves an infinite amount of damage by not having an organisation ready to cope with any situation at that time.
  I think that the B.B.C. could render much more assistance to the Royal Air Force. There are two retired air marshals on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. Why do not we ask them to give the benefit of their knowledge both for recruiting, and about what the Air Force is doing for the nation? We had a review of the Royal Air Force on New Year's Eve, but nothing was said about Malaya and what the Royal Air Force did to keep the Colony going for weeks on end by bringing in supplies and men and materials to keep peace.
  I would ask that the public relations department make more use of their own paper, the "Royal Air Force Review." In October and November they had an article and pages of pictures describing the Soviet Air Force. Some of it was quite inaccurate, and I got the impression that it was written by a Communist within the walls of Adastral House. Surely at this time we do not want to publicise the Soviet Air Force. I cannot imagine the Royal Air Force being given a favourable write-up in Moscow—when we get Yaks diving down on civil and military aircraft flying into Berlin and generally being completely unhelpful. I think the Ministry has to be really bold and set about these people who are trying to play the game of breaking it up from within.

  383
  I wish to refer to the question of leadership and morale. In my view there is no doubt that the Air Force today is deficient in leadership. That I think is due mainly to organisation. As is generally known, the Service is split into three divisions. First of all flying, which seems to count least of all, and then administrative and technical. Stations from which the aircraft operate are composed as I have outlined, and that system is reflected at group and command headquarters. It is known, as the right hon. Gentleman will well know, as the "three prong system." There is a certain amount to commend the system, because in certain respects there is a saving in man hours. But, generally speaking, there are definite drawbacks, to two of which in particular I will refer.
  The first is that on a bomber or fighter station two-thirds of the men on the station come under the command of noncombatant officers, officers who never sit in an aeroplane in any capacity, except perhaps to test some piece of equipment. I think that that is entirely wrong. In a fighting Service the men, in the main, ought to be commanded by men who know their business of flying aeroplanes. I have no doubt that the technical officers are extremely good at their jobs, whether it be radio, engineering or anything else. But, nevertheless, they are not aviators, and I believe the men would react much more favourably if they were commanded by combatant officers, the men who do the fighting.
  The second point is that the technical branches share to a very large extent the responsibility for the Service. The general duties officer, the pilot, gets very little experience at all in command in his early days in the Service. He is merely left there to learn how to fly his aeroplane, he gets no real opportunity of exercising command in his early years in the Serwhich I admit is difficult enough. But vice. The general duties officers are the men who will be the future Chief of Air Staff and will fill several of the more senior posts at the Air Ministry, and on the Air Council—not all but most of them. It seems most unfortunate that he should not get an opportunity to command in his early years. I do not think that this is a very good example of the impressive planning on which the Government prides itself. Administration is all
  384
  right up to a point, but there is no substitute for really doing the job. In the Navy there are large shore establishments, but nevertheless the men, whatever their branch, have to go to sea every so often and they are in touch with their profession. Not so in the Air Force. Many of them never fly.
  I wonder how many air marshals can really fly a modern aeroplane? How many could step into a Spitfire or even a Mosquito and fly it? Not very many. I know of one or two regular flying men but most of them have probably not flown an aeroplane for 15 or 20 years. It really is deplorable and it ought to be put right. If something on these lines could be done to give the young general duties officer the opportunity to exercise more command, there would be a reduction in the overall establishments throughout the Service. It is most important that the atmosphere of flying should permeate the whole Service. We would get that atmosphere if we had larger squadrons. Today the squadrons are minute because they have echelons and other units rendering assistance. Every airman likes to think that he belongs to a famous squadron. Even if he is a cook he likes to belong to a squadron instead of merely being a number and living as one of many hundreds on a station.
  The squadrons in time of peace should be expanded even at the expense of centralisation. I do not say that that system could be carried on in war, but then I do not think that it is possible to have the same set-up in peace as in war. We must be ready to expand and to give efficient training. I do not think that the present system has had any great effect on the serviceability of aircraft. One hears only too often of the difficulties of the Air Force in keeping machines flying and bringing about a high rate of serviceability. Unquestionably it is bad for morale. I believe that there is too much over-centralisation in the R.A.F. The Secretary of State admitted recently that there were 265 courses of instruction open to the whole of the Service. We know that this is a highly technical Service and that we must have a number of courses, but I suggest that many of them could be combined or done away with altogether.
  There are far too many branches in the Air Force. I will give a few examples. There are the provost,

  385
  the catering, the physical fitness and the marine branches. Many of these jobs could be done by general duties officers. They were done before the war very efficiently. After all, there is very little to teach a man in order to enable him to operate a small motor boat around Calshot. A man who is off flying for a limited period could well be taught another branch of the Service. Furthermore, these branches offer only a limited career to the men who join them. Their prospects of promotion could not be more gloomy. If they ever reach squadron-leader rank, most of them will be fortunate. The consequence is that the best men are not attracted, yet the Air Force wants the best and nothing but the best. People tend to get into what might be called backwaters, and usually we get a poor type who want to go into those branches.
  I now refer to the R.A.F. Regiment. This subject has been discussed before. I referred to it myself last autumn. I cannot for the life of me see what are the functions of the R.A.F. Regiment. I am prepared to believe that the regiment does an extremely good job in carrying out its duties in many parts of the world, but I suggest that it is a task which ought to be undertaken entirely by the Army. If the Army will not co-operate to do the job, then they should be made to do it. Certainly, it is not the job of the Royal Air Force to train troops on the ground for the defence of aerodromes. I know that there are arguments on both sides. My view is that it is extravagant and expensive. I do not think that anybody really knows the functions of the Regiment. The R.A.F. Regiment was formed after the fall of Singapore when the Government were most concerned about the danger of airfields at home being occupied. A quick decision was arrived at. In practice this ought to be an Army responsibility.
  There is no doubt that many of the establishments in the Service are inflated. There is a tendency to promote far too many good N.C.Os. and warrant officers to junior officer posts where they will never get promotion. That procedure ruins a good N.C.O. and puts him into a job where perhaps he is an indifferent officer with even less responsibility than he had previously. This argument applies also to the technical branch.
  On the subject of pay, the Minister of Defence made a statement a few weeks
  386
  ago. The concessions were better than nothing. The right hon. Gentleman appears rather hurt at my remarks. I assure him that if he discusses this matter with Air Force men he will find that my view is the correct one. The officers were horrified when they heard of this increase. They had expected something better. If the Minister had given them their 6s. a day allowance free of Income Tax he would have had a good reception, but to give 6s. and to tax it, is to give an increase which amounts to nothing at all when one considers the commitments which an officer must meet. No one is more hard up today than the middle class professional man in all walks of life, in particular in the R.A.F. The pay is virtually the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago. The man is faced with all the problems of postings and of educating his children who may have to go to a new school almost every year. Many of these men are worried to death about their budgets. What has been given will be no real assistance.
  I should like to point out one real anomaly to the Minister of Defence. I refer to the question of the G/D officer who admittedly has flying risks. He flies high speed aircraft and often it is a dangerous occupation. One does not want to overestimate that side of the question, because it is part of his every-day life, but in the end he carries a responsibility for doing the job. He gets the same pay as the man who works on the ground with the exception of the flying officer and pilot officer who get an extra 3s. a day. The flight-lieutenant and the squadron-leader get the same pay as those in the technical branch who sit in a nice warm office provided with tea and other comforts. That is quite wrong. We should follow the example of the Navy and pay risk pay—submarine pay or flying pay such as is given in the Fleet Air Arm. I know that the argument is that the general duties officer, the pilot, gets quicker promotion. Of course, that argument cuts both ways. If a man gets quicker promotion and becomes a group captain, he is retired sooner than the technical officer, so that his period of expectation as an officer drawing full pay and allowances is less than that of the officer on the ground who gets the same pay for taking no risks.

  387
  Another point is that, compared with the technical officer, the general duties officer is at a big disadvantage on the question of married quarters. As a rule the technical officer has had longer service usually because he has gone through Halton and become an N.C.O. and then a commissioned officer. His service, added up on a points system, gives him a married quarter much sooner than the general duties officer. There is considerable dissatisfaction in the Air Force about the allocation of married quarters. I ask the Secretary of State to inquire into the whole matter of the allocation of these quarters and see whether he can do something to make the system more fair.
  Today the R.A.F. do not know what they are meant to be doing. There is no clear picture of direction to the Service as a whole. Before the war it was generally accepted that their job was to fly. Everybody worked to that end to get the aircraft serviceable and to get the maximum amount of flying training. I consider that the staffs today are much too large. They have been carried on from the end of the war and they have never been sufficiently pruned. For instance, we have the central fighter establishment and the central bomber establishment which are very fine affairs. I have no doubt that some of the results obtained are good, but I am told by men in the Service—senior officers and others—that these two units could well be dispensed with. They are most extravagant units and the work could be carried out on other stations.
  The branches are all too watertight. Nobody really knows what another branch is doing, and there is far too much paper work throughout the Service. The right hon. Gentleman should get busy and form yet another committee to go into all these and many other matters. There is disquiet today both in the Service and outside. Over the last 30 years the Air Force has built up a great tradition for fighting and for the way in which it does its job. In the Berlin air lift we have a most magnificent example. We want to improve on these things and to get the best men into the R.A.F. Why are not the headmasters recommending boys to go into the Air Force? I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they are not doing so, and there must be some reason why headmasters are not
  388
  backing up the Service to the extent to which they should.
  I put forward one final suggestion. The time has come for some of the more senior officers to retire and make way for younger men. We want men of the middle 40's to accept the highest commands, men who can fly aeroplanes, who can set the right spirit and who have themselves graduated through the Staff Colleges. But they must start soon; it cannot be left long. Much can be done to bring about a better Royal Air Force. I believe that Lord Douglas was right when he said "Unless something is done, the Royal Air Force will die on its feet."
  6.1 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Millington: I remember during the recent war, when I was a squadron commander in Bomber Command, going to a conference at a training aerodrome which was very heavily over-established. I will not mention its name, but airmen will know which one I mean. During the course of that conference, a senior officer said, "This station runs perfectly, except for flying," There was a certain amount of criticism of my rather jejune comment that, if the flying had run perfectly, it would not have mattered about the rest of the station.
  I want to talk about flying, its purpose and the function of the Royal Air Force in relation to flying. Those who are engaged in the occupation of flying, either in the Royal Air Force or in civil flying, are exceedingly fortunate in that they have an occupation which employs the most recent and by far the most thrilling method of getting from one place to another that has ever been invented. It is almost impossible for landlubbers properly to understand what there is in flying to an airman.
  For example, it is very difficult to explain the purely aesthetic thrill of leaving the ground at 4 o'clock on a November afternoon, when there is a heavy overcast of low cloud, and flying up from damp, dark, dreary and miserable weather, through 9,000 or 10,000 feet of cloud, into clear sunshine, and flying for an hour or so in beautiful sunny weather before a second twilight and a second dark. It is very difficult to explain exactly what the thrill is to anybody engaged in making these machines and in flying them

  389
  in close formation at low altitude and at high speed. It is very difficult to explain the immense aesthetic thrill of going faster than people have ever done before.
  All of these things are part of the enormous attraction of flying itself to young men, and they are the justification for having an Air Force at all. I believe that the whole of the organisation of the Royal Air Force today should have only one purpose, and that is, that as many aircraft and as many airmen as possible should be put into the air for the purpose of completing their training during non-operational periods, so that we have a nation of men trained to a true appreciation of the instrument which modern science has put into our hands and capable of using it most competently. Because of that enormous attraction of the instruments of the Royal Air Force, I believe that a grave injustice is done to the R.A.F. by opponents of the present Administration—and, in this instance, I am not referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), or indeed to his speech, his record in the R.A.F. throughout the war or his service as a Member of Parliament—but, in particular, to Press comments on the state of the R.A.F.
  I believe a great injustice is done to the Service and to the men who are doing a magnificent job in it, particularly the flying men, when we have a concentration of the emphasis upon maladministration, upon low morale and on all the dreariness of which we read from time to time in the newspapers. In fact, I believe that, whereas it was true immediately after the cessation of hostilities in 1945—and the reason must have been apparent to the majority of hon. Members of this House why morale in the R.A.F. had sunk to a low level—the fact now is that there has been a progressive building-up of morale, simply because the causes of that declension were removed as soon as the first war run-down had been completed.
  That does not mean that the whole of the administration of the R.A.F. is free from criticism. I have very much the same view as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that there is something wrong with the relationship between flying formations and ground formations. Whereas, in the pre-war days and in the early days of the war,
  390
  flight commanders who were pilots had the responsibility for ground crews, who serviced specific aircraft, which they could fly and of which they knew the purpose, nowadays there has been over-specialisation, which has brought a second consequence that we now have a rather inchoate mass of technical airmen who are grossly under-officered and who suffer from an inadequate degree of proper welfare attention. I believe that some compromise between the pre-war system and that in use today will have to be worked out, so that, when officers are created for specific flying or technical purposes, they will become officers in the same sense as an officer in the Army, having responsibility for men management and for looking after the welfare of N.C.O.s and other ranks.
  If there is one reason why morale is a little shaken in some sections of the R.A.F., I believe that it lies not so much in the administration and organisation of the R.A.F. itself, but in the political usage of the R.A.F. The criticism which one can level at the R.A.F. is, in fact, not a criticism of the R.A.F. at all, but rather a criticism of the grand strategy which employs the R.A.F. at this moment for certain purposes. I would say, for example, of the affair of 7th January, and of the effect which it has had in the minds of the airmen, that instructions were given for two tactical reconnaissance flights for political purposes which caused men to take risks considerably in excess of the proper risks that should be taken by the Royal Air Force at a time when we are not engaged in specific hostilities.
  That is the kind of thing which causes a considerable lowering of morale, not only among the airmen engaged, but, what is of enormous importance in all Service questions, a lowering of morale of their dependents, who see husbands and sons sticking out their necks in what they consider to be unnecessary directions. I think it is quite likely that it would be impossible to explain at all times and in detail the reasons for the specific use of specific units of the Royal Air Force, but I think that more could be done to present a clearer picture of the general use by the Defence Ministries, so that serving men and their dependents should have a clearer idea of the potentiality of risk which airmen would have to face.

  391
  I have no fear about the spirit and the morale of the Royal Air Force. I have seen many units during the last three years, and I believe that even those who have come quite newly to the Air Force and who have no recollection of it during the recent war, have properly inherited the traditions of the Air Force which have been built up over the last 30 years. What is needed is a little more close appreciation of what the man on the spot is feeling, a little more appreciation of the fact that the individual airman does not quite feel part of the whole thing, that he does not quite feel that he has a specific officer looking after his interests. If something can be done to tidy that up, I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that the Royal Air Force today could, if called upon, give as good an account of itself as it has ever done during the last 30 years.
  6.12 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Had we known that there would be an evening for discussing this Adjournment subject, I am sure that many of us who have been associated with the Royal Air Force during the last few years, and have an affection for that Service, would have been prepared to tackle this matter in the grand manner. However, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) raised this subject, and I only wish that the title chosen by him had been a little more fortunate. If anything, it was a little alarmist.
  I have always thought it was the Royal Air Force which, since the Armistice in 1945, had the biggest flop in spirit, morale, or that intangible thing which keeps a great force going when its job is finished.
  I remember, before the Armistice, people on bomber stations saying that they did not quite know what they would do, because all their targets had disappeared. We had the finest implement of war the world has ever seen, a great force and a wonderful spirit, but suddenly its work was ended as though a guillotine had fallen upon it. It is my experience that the Royal Air Force would never have had its morale or efficiency questioned in the years following the Armistice had we been able to offer a section of the people in that Service
  392
  permanent jobs for the rest of their lives. After all, that is what most people want; they expect it in industry and commerce, so why should they not expect it in the Services, also?
  I remember, at the height of the bombing campaign, talking about the post-war situation with the wireless operator of a Lancaster. He had joined the Royal Air Force because he was attracted by the life, and wanted to do his service in that branch of the Armed Forces. He was so taken up with his experience during the war that, when it was over, he hoped to be able to carry on in the Air Force. I told him that I thought that was a fine thing to do, and that there would be opportunities for doing so. I asked him whether it meant that he had not much of a job before the war. "Oh, no," he said, "I was the pianist in the so-and-so dance band." I should have thought that the salary that he could get as a pianist in a well-known dance band would be far higher than he could expect to receive if he rose to the rank of squadron-leader as a member of a bomber crew. But he was so attracted to the Air Force that he had given up all idea of resuming his old profession in which, I presume, it would be possible to rise to greater heights in the monetary sense than by being an officer in the Air Force. But the flop came.
  It seems to me that the one mistake made in the intervening years is that the opportunity was not taken while that spirit existed among those people who were willing to go on serving. Three years ago I was in a Royal Air Force hospital, and about that time people were hoping to get some answer to their applications for permanent commissions. I saw the forms they had to fill up, many of the details of which had no relevance to the matter. I am constantly meeting these people and find that they are still waiting and hoping for an answer to their applications. Only last week I came across a serving officer who, to my surprise, was a navigator. He had already got his permanent commission. He told me that, as far as he knew, he was the only navigator who had been given a permanent commission, and he thought himself very lucky indeed. Very often we who served in the Royal Air Force meet people who have given up all hope of remaining in the Service; they have left the Royal Air Force, and are doing other jobs.

  393
  There are further characteristics which ought, I think, to be looked into by this House and by the Air Minister. One is the question of overdone secrecy. As far as the general public are aware, there is a secret operation going on day by day—the supplying of Berlin by this country. How many of our people see the magnificent work being done? I remember, when we were sitting on the advisory committee and considering the question of private flying, a representative from the Ministry of Education was present. One question put to this representative was, "Are not the children still doodling on their desks and drawing pictures of aircraft as we know the schoolboys did during the war?" The reply was, "Oh no, they never do that now." "Why not?" the representative was asked. This time the answer was, "They never see any aircraft nowadays." As far as the public is concerned there is very little news about this magnificent airlift.
  We have been told of the work going on in Malaya. When we were using this island as a bombing station, we had to keep the operations as secret as we could, although I know that the enemy knew far more about them than did the great mass of the general public in this country. I think the Air Force should take the public into its confidence. Let them see what a grand job the serving people are doing, even today.
  The question of the recent operation "Sunrise" was brought up by the hon. and gallant Member. I presume that, as far as the public are aware, that operation was a failure. The public have probably got the impression that there is something really wrong with the Air Force because the weather stopped it from carrying out its operational activities. Had the public been kept properly informed as to how the weather intervened during the war, and how it stopped activities, if they had been told the whole story of the incident concerning the two German battleships, "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau," and why those battleships got through, they would probably have appreciated, more than they did, the work of the Air Force. If the public only realised that in this part of the world, situated, as it is, on the edge of the Atlantic, the weather is highly unpredictable, and that there is no more difficult place over which to fly,
  394
  they would be able to put these happenings in their proper perspective, and would realise how difficult is the position.
  There is one point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. It is that on this small island there is always a potential ready to move into the Navy. For instance, people around my constituency spend a great deal of time on the Broads during the summer, and there are the little ships off the Norfolk coast. That, of course, is the experience of every hon. Member who has a constituency impinging on the coast. There is this constant activity on our waters, whether inland or at sea. There is a great reservoir on which the Navy has always drawn from the time of Alfred the Great down to the present day. But the great Force, whether we like it or not, is going to be the Air Force. We are the centre of a great Commonwealth; we have no land communications like Russia, and as our people must cross the seven seas the method of their travel must obviously be by air. It seemed to us on the permanent advisory committee that we ought to see that all our young folk are made as air-minded as they were made sea-minded by the chance of history.
  In our report we pointed out that in many countries private flying, gliding and, in several instances, the construction of model aircraft received direct financial assistance from the State. One of the main reasons for such assistance is the defence value of those activities. We know that discussions have been going on ever since that report was issued in August, 1947. We hope that some tangible result will emerge in the near future, but in view of the fact that this is a Debate on the efficiency of the Royal Air Force I thought it wise to mention the point, in passing, so that the Ministers concerned could be alive to the fact that there is a wonderful potential for the Air Ministry in this country if only they would provide the impetus, with the other Ministries, like that of Civil Aviation, in order that we may have the same reserve always behind the Air Force as that which the Navy has always had in its history. That is important not only for defence purposes, because future movement will be by air. We are the people who, as the centre of a commonwealth, have to do more moving than any other collection of nations. It is our duty,

  395
  in this House, to see that every opportunity is given to the younger generation to exploit the wonders we have discovered in the earth.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling: I am a little troubled by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) as to exactly how it will be possible for children to see the air lift to Berlin? Having been linked up with the public relations side of the Air Ministry during the war, I can say that I believe we have today in Fleet Street a great number of quite brilliant journalists who were with the public relations department and who are more than willing to do everything they possibly can for the Royal Air Force to publicise it. If they are not able to do so, it seems to me that it must be because there is something wrong with what they have to sell.
  I am particularly glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) raised this issue this evening. It should be raised as frequently as possible. Obviously the younger generation are not entering the R.A.F. to anything like the extent we should expect. We have all received many letters from men already in the R.A.F., men who have been called up, complaining about the lack of anything to do. We hear from parents who are very worried about the future of their sons, and about what will happen to them as long as they stay in the R.A.F. Then there are organisations such as the R.A.F. Association which today is more successful than the British Legion in recruiting old R.A.F. types. Yet this association does not seem to be able to get the younger people interested, or to get them to want to join the Royal Air Force.
  I put that down to the feeling amongst, say, the pilots that the present people in command, those at present at the head in the Air Force, are people who had very little to do with the pilots' life and the pilots' work during the last war. Many of them were mixed up with the 1914–18 war and others with the period just after that. These men are in key positions. They are too old. It may be that that would be a good thing in the Army and the Navy, but the Air Force is a new force in which undoubtedly it
  396
  is not a good thing. We want the younger men, the men who served brilliantly during the war and who are famous names, to be in command today and to be in the key positions.
  Next comes the question of family life. The younger pilots want to get married; older ones are married. They simply cannot find proper housing accommodation. My own brother-in-law is a Group Captain and at the present moment he is in Singapore. His wife and children have had to remain in this country; yet he was abroad all through the war and they saw practically nothing of him then. The same thing is happening to many others. I feel that very little is being done to try to make it possible for families to keep together. I do not entirely lay the blame for that on the Air Ministry. It may be largely Treasury pressure from behind. If that is so then we in this House must press the Treasury to give the Air Ministry the opportunity to make it attractive for young men to join the R.A.F. There is a great need for better amenities of all kinds, not only abroad but at home. Things have greatly changed since the war so far as amenities are concerned and especially with regard to homes and the possibility of family life.
  Pay is very bad. It is in no way sufficient to tempt people. Furthermore, the young men know they will be leaving the service at a fairly early age. Unless a scheme is introduced whereby after they leave the Air Force they can be placed into some other kind of Government employment or given some other job, it seems that we shall have to wait a long time before we get people really interested. It is inevitable that after all the publicity during the war there should be, amongst the public, a certain lack of interest in films about the Royal Air Force or in reading about it. That is a natural reaction which can continue for a long time. I suppose many of the papers do not want to publish, nor do the film producers want to produce films, about news which may not be very attractive. That danger exists. The Air Ministry must do all they can to get to the root of such problems.
  Mainly—I think almost entirely—the reasons for lack of interest are questions of pay, amenities and above all housing for families; those are the critical problems from the point of view of persuading

  397
  the ordinary young man to join the R.A.F. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) spoke of the incidents which occurred at the beginning of January. No doubt they will be debated at some other time but that sort of thing greatly alarms parents and families. I think the subject will have to be discussed in much more detail later.
  I beg the Air Ministry to put before the Treasury the fact that unless they can give more money to make things easier for people who join we shall not get what we badly need—the very best type in the R.A.F. We must not spend too much time on technical work, making people feel that the Air Force is becoming anything like a branch of a university. It frightens away young men who would make brilliant pilots in the long run and who are terrified by all the paper and by the technical details upon which they are made to work.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising this question this evening. Incidentally, may I make him an overdue apology, because on one occasion, in an interjection, I attributed to him certain remarks about the strategy of attacking the enemy potential behind the iron curtain which actually were made by another hon. Member. I take this opportunity to make the necessary apology, and to rectify the mistake which I made.
  At the back of all our minds in dealing with this question of the efficiency of the Air Force is the question which was raised yesterday at Question Time. I had a great deal of sympathy for the Secretary of State for Air, because he was doing his best to defend what I thought was an impossible position. All this all revolves upon the efficiency of the Air Force, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think I should tell the hon. Member, who obviously appreciated that I was looking at him, that I am very doubtful whether what he is apparently beginning to say comes within the purview of this Debate. I hope he will not develop that point.
  Mr. Hughes: I have great respect for you, Sir, but I fail to understand how you can suggest that what I am about to begin to say is out of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps if I am a little more definite the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point. To develop any matter about the incidents which were the subject matter of Questions yesterday would be irrelevant, I think, in a Debate dealing with the efficiency of the Royal Air Force.
  Captain Crookshank: I do not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I thought that on the Adjournment any hon. Member could address the House on any subject he liked, and that it was merely a convention that, because we are now discussing the efficiency of the Air Force, we should discuss that only. Surely, at all times it is open to a Member who catches your eye on the Adjournment to raise any matter which does not involve legislation?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have every respect, Sir, for your judgment as Deputy-Speaker, but I have my doubts about your capacity as a clairvoyant.
  Captain Crookshank: I should like to have established whether what I have just said was right or wrong, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it may affect future Debates, whatever happens to this one.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to deal with the question——
  Captain Crookshank: I raised a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry to press you, if it is inconvenient.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in principle, but my own personal view is that when a specific matter is selected for Debate, then, so far as possible, the House should confine itself to that subject, and not range over other subjects.
  Captain Crookshank: I take it that that is a matter of convention which is for the general convenience of the House, and which I quite accept. I wanted to have it on record, however, that it is quite possible to raise other topics if that is desired, provided legislation is not involved.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct in that.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to be a bone of contention in this House. The subject of the Debate is, I understand, the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. I suggest that this is a subject which ought to be discussed from a rather wider angle, and that it should not develop into a technical discussion between experts, because we know the enthusiasm of the experts for their particular ideas about strategy; and technical experts, when they come to discuss their pet theories, should certainly be checked by the general body of public opinion represented in this House. That is to take a very much wider view than the views that have been put before the House in the speeches we have just heard. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) referred to the efficiency of the Air Force in relation to its political usage.
  Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask the hon. Member if he does not think he is not an efficient clairvoyant?
  Captain Crookshank: He could not get it clear.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The exact phrase the hon. and gallant Member used was "political usage of the Air Force," and he proceeded to elaborate certain technical arguments in discussing the proficiency of the Air Force. In discussing the proficiency of the Air Force my question is: to what extent does it serve the nation, and of what particular use is it to us in giving us security? I submit that we have to discuss the proficiency of the Air Force in relation to the possible usages of the Air Force. What is the purpose of the Air Force in the Middle East, for example? It is to protect certain strategic interests, and the efficiency of the Air Force must be considered in relation to the question whether or not it achieves that purpose. I suggest that when the efficiency of the Air Force is such that five machines are shot down with loss of life, it passes outside purely technical, tactical, strategical and academic considerations, and that the efficiency of the Royal Air Force must be judged according to wider considerations, which we all have in mind.
  400
  I am an ordinary layman, and not a technical expert in warfare at all. I am not a technical expert in the use of bombers and fighters. I want to know how this efficiency can be considered in relation to the broad general question of security. I challenge the whole conception put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken, that the Air Force is a guarantee of security and safety. I have the greatest possible fear that if this argument is developed, and if we relate it to the policy of the Government, we shall be involved in enormous expenditure. The experts in air warfare will want this, that and the other thing, in times when these things cost an enormous amount of money. After we have piled up a huge bill for the Air Force, I fear, we shall not get the security that this House would wish to obtain for the people of these islands.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member challenges the House. Perhaps he would say what he would do with the Air Force if he were in charge of it? Would he scrap it, or what would he do with it?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am coming to the question of what I would do with the Air Force. I would certainly say, "Scrap it." I have not made any bones about that in this House. I say the nation would be better off without an Air Force, and that in atomic warfare the people of this country would be safer if we had no Air Force at all.
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that to scrap the Air Force would require legislation.
  Mr. Hughes: When you arrived, Mr. Speaker, I thought my difficulties were over, but I find they are only beginning. However, I was diverted from my argument only by the interjection of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). Perhaps, at another time I shall be able to answer his question in great detail and, at least, to my own satisfaction. But I am not at all satisfied that we have an efficient Air Force for the purpose of protecting the security and life of the people of this country. I do not believe that the Air Force, with all the bombers and fighters, can stop the atomic bomb. It is, surely, recognised in the world today that the next war will be fought with rockets, with atomic energy. I fail to see that the hon.

  401
  and gallant Member for Macclesfield produced any ideas to show that the Air Force is becoming any more efficient in that respect.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has said something which I think is most unfair, and I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing only with the efficiency of the Air Force within itself, and not with strategy.
  Mr. Speaker: Under the Rules of Order pertaining to the Adjournment the hon. Member can wander widely. There is no protection.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I submit that this is a wider matter than the technical arguments produced by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. He knows as well as I do that in the later stages of the last war atomic bombs were dropped in Japan. If he is not to heed those lessons, if he imagines that we should build up an Air Force on the lines of the one we had in the last war, on the theory that bombers and fighters will be employed in the next war as in the last war, I say that the hon. and gallant Member is under a delusion.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Assuming that the British Air Force is scrapped, does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Russians should keep their Air Force at its present strength?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is a further invitation to me to digress outside the limits of this Debate. If necessary, I am prepared to deal with that point at the proper time. I am trying to bring the hon. and gallant Gentleman down to an appreciation of the fact that we are living in an age of atomic bombs, and no evidence has been produced to show how fighters and bombers and the sort of Air Force in which the hon. and gallant Member served so gallantly in the last war are relevant to atomic warfare, which is no longer a dream but a reality. We have reached the stage of rocket warfare. I do not know how the R.A.F. can possibly prevent rockets descending on this country. I discussed this question with technical experts in America, and I listened to the American Secretary for Air, Mr. Symington, addressing a meeting in New York on the question of the Berlin air lift. There are certain aspects of the air lift which
  402
  have to be considered. The argument produced on that occasion was that the air lift was not only to help the starving people of Berlin, but was also a sort of practice for what might happen if war should, unfortunately, come again.
  The hon. and gallant Member talked about attracting people into the Air Force. For what are we attracting people into the Air Force, and teaching them to bomb? I presume that we teach our bombers to obliterate the enemy. We used the weapon of the bomber in the last war, as the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) has pointed out, for the purpose of obliterating the enemy and the civil population. If we had war tomorrow, and war in the air with the Russians, and Berlin became the headquarters of the Russian Air Force, I have no doubt that we would forget all about our sympathy with the civilian population of Berlin and proceed to obliterate it, as the Americans obliterated Hiroshima. I object very strongly to taking our young people and training them to be what they must be in the next war—just mass murderers. That is the reality of every war. There is no guarantee that an atomic bomb will not be dropped on a city of one million people. Whether that city is German or Russian, there are human beings in it, just the same. What we are doing is to train our young fellows in the R.A.F. in technical efficiency for the purpose of mass murder.
  Even so, I presume that the question of the efficiency of the Air Force must be considered in relation to strategy in the Middle East. The Air Force is in the Middle East for what purpose? In the old days it used to be said that we needed the whole area of the Middle East for the defence of India; but now we have no India to defend, and I wonder whether we are justified in spending a great deal of money in the Middle East and on the R.A.F. for the purposes which have produced the unfortunate results which are apparent just now. Mount Sinai has come into the news after 5,000 years. Mount Sinai is in the wilderness. We were told that Moses was taking the people out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. Today, men are taking us away from the Promised Land and back into the wilderness.

  403
  What is the truth about our bases in the Middle East and our collection of aeroplanes in the Middle East? I have frequently pointed out in this House that the Middle East is regarded as a potential base of attack upon the oilfields of Russia. That is the truth, and the Minister of Defence cannot deny it. He cannot deny that at one stage of the last war—and it has been discussed in detail in the Swedish White Book—the Allies had a plan, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, for bombing the oilfields of the Caucasus. If we face the fact, that is exactly the purpose for which we need bases for the R.A.F. in the Middle East today. I would feel safer in this country if we had no Air Force at all, because I do not know how the Air Force can defend this country with its congested population in the event of atomic air war. I suggest that although this may be wide of the discussion, and may not deal with organisation, flights, day-to-day tactics, and strategy, this is the background against which we must consider every item of expenditure on the Royal Air Force.
  I was sorry for the Minister yesterday when he tried to defend the impossible case which he had to defend. If we did not have an Air Force in the Middle East, we would not have Members on the Government Front Bench trying to extricate themselves from such an impossible position. I believe that the people of this country would be very much reassured if we took away our aeroplanes from the Middle East, as we have taken them out of India. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that in certain parts of the world we have given the people Home Rule, and that we have cleared out. We have heard all sorts of prophecies in this House about the terrible things that would happen in India when we left India. Why should we not leave the Middle East as well?
  Cannot we get all the education, enthusiasm and technical experience of our young people and harness it to constructive work? When talking about the efficiency of the R.A.F., we should consider what the R.A.F. is for and what our strategy is for. On every possible occasion, those of us who challenge this assumption, and say that we have to consider it against the broad background of creative activity and the building up of
  404
  a new world, should put this point of view before the House.
  6.49 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I understand that there is an agreement whereby we shall soon pass to another subject, and I should not like anyone to think that the interest of this House as a whole, or of my hon. and gallant Friends, in the R.A.F. is merely limited to this short Debate. It should be made quite clear that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) was fortunate enough to select this subject for an Adjournment Debate, and that it should not be regarded as a full-dress discussion of all the range of topics involved in the strategical purposes of the R.A.F. or. indeed, in its internal organisation.
  I imagine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this topic because it is a preview of the discussions which are bound to take place on his Estimates in a comparatively short time. He will then find that there will be a lot further to be said on both sides of the House about what is I think true—a certain feeling of anxiety about the Royal Air Force today. It may be in the Force itself, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, and it certainly is elsewhere. There have been disquieting reports, and disquieting things have been said by high R.A.F. officers, both serving and retired, about their own problems, which will have to be probed. If I may say so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is doing a good deal of probing. I understand he is doing a great deal of visiting of the Royal Air Force up and down the country, and I hope that as a result of those visits and his staff consultations, which presumably will take place afterwards, he will be able himself to form a sound estimate of what is wrong, if anything is wrong, and will be able to come forward later on with some of the answers, which he may not be able to give tonight to my hon. and gallant Friend's questions.
  It certainly does seem that on the more obvious points, such as pay, housing and amenities, which are basic to the contentment of the men themselves, there are grievances of all kinds. However, I hope it will not go out that necessarily all

  405
  accommodation in the Royal Air Force is bad, because I must say that I was indeed pleased a few months ago, when the Americans first came over, to find how delighted the Americans were with the good accommodation in our own R.A.F. stations to which they came, compared with what they had been having to use in the United States during recent months. I think it should go on record that our good is probably the best that can be had. The trouble is that there is not enough of it. I hope that it will be the aim of the Secretary of State to do his best to improve the bad and to see that what is good does not deteriorate.
  My hon. and gallant Friend touched upon one topic of enormous interest and extreme importance, and that is discipline. It may be that from the very nature of the case the Royal Air Force has had to adopt for that purpose different bases from those of the other two Services; but if I may venture a criticism—seeing it as I have done for so many years, because my constituency is one in which famous squadrons have always been posted—it is of the tremendously rapid changes and repostings of officers, particularly station commanders. I am not fully acquainted with the details of these things, but it must surely be wrong to change the stations commander too frequently. Almost every Recess when I go to the local station I find somebody new in command. That, of course, must militate against the commanding officer's own morale, because on coming there he has a house, and then in perhaps five, six or eight months he is sent off to another station, with all the complication and expense of moving house, particularly if he is married and has children. I do hope that a little more stability can be given in that type of command.
  In the Army an officer who gets command of a battalion has a reasonable expectation that he will command that battalion for a certain period. But from my inquiries I do not find that there is any reasonable expectation, at present at any rate, for officers of that rank in the Royal Air Force. That applies not only to officers of that rank. Not very long ago I heard of a quite junior officer who over the last three and a half years had averaged not more than two months on one station; almost as soon as he had
  406
  arrived and unpacked his bag, and before he got to know his messmates, he was sent off somewhere else.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will examine that problem, which I think is fundamental to discipline. It is fundamental to the real basis of Discipline—in my view at any rate—which is that the officer should know his men. I quite agree that in the Royal Air Force the same responsibility is not put upon all officers. Indeed, that was part of the complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend. The same responsibility for looking after their men is not put upon Royal Air Force officers as is put upon officers of the Army or Navy. The system is different, and I am not quarrelling with that, if that be the right answer. But certainly if constant changes are taking place in all ranks it is made almost impossible to achieve a real basis of interest in the men themselves. What follows from that, and is indeed part of it, is the attention to welfare. Welfare cannot be divorced from—to use the awful modern phrase—man-management. Welfare cannot be put out to the expert and the technician; it must be a problem as between the officer and the men under his direct command.
  The other difficulty to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred was overspecialisation. He, of course, knows far more than I could possibly know about that problem, but there again I wonder whether some of the difficulty which is being experienced by the Royal Air Force is not due to the fact that the recruiting posters and circulars, which call attention to the openings for so many different trades and groupings of work in the Force itself, do tend to make those entering the Royal Air Force—and I just ask the question—look far more at the job they are to do, which may be useful to them when they leave the Royal Air Force, than feel that they are entering a military organisation whose job is, not so much to train this, that and the other kind of tradesman, as to train something which is one of the three great Forces upon which this country depends for its safety at all times. I wonder whether, before a man ever gets into the R.A.F., the emphasis is not being put a little too much upon what is to happen to him after he leaves the Royal Air Force? I am not certain that the appeal is entirely rightly conceived today.

  407
  These are just obiter dicta on my part, but I have been wanting to put those two points to the Secretary of State for a long time. I hope he will give them and the other points raised in the Debate full consideration, even if he cannot answer them all tonight. I will end by saying that I hope none of the criticisms, and weighty criticisms, which have been made from different parts of the House will be held to mean that we in any way denigrate the value of the Royal Air Force or fail to appreciate the wonderful service it has rendered and is still rendering to the nation. Certainly not. One can criticise administrative matters without casting any slur upon a great Service, and I hope that is perfectly clear. I do not know about the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—eccentric views are all part of the conglomeration of Parliament—but we hope that no one will think that we do not all feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a tremendous responsibility in his job. After all, Parliament votes enormous sums of money, and if as a result of the criticisms made improvements follow and we get a more efficient instrument for our policies, that is what we require.
  My last word would be this. I hope that this year at any rate the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible a little more to lift the veil of secrecy which has hung over the Royal Air Force ever since the war. We still do not know its strength; we still do not know how effective an instrument it is today. The information which was available before the war on all Service matters is not yet given to Parliament, and for my own part I cannot see why it should not be. The dangers of 1949 are really no greater in that respect than were the dangers of 1939, yet in 1939 far more generous information was given than is vouchsafed to us today. I hope that that also will receive the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman before we come to the detailed Estimates. Tonight we have had a short preview, with pointed comments from my hon. and gallant Friend which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Recently a spate of criticism in various parts of the country
  408
  has been levelled against the Royal Air Force, and, like the unbalanced state of the Force, a great deal of that criticism is also unbalanced. Tonight, we are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising these matters. Whatever differences there may be on other issues, we are certainly on common ground in concerning ourselves with the welfare and effectiveness of one of our defence Services. All the speeches which have been concerned with the state of the Royal Air Force have, in my opinion, been on a constructive basis, and directed towards helping the Royal Air Force. I should like, in turn, to deal with most of the points that have been raised on that basis. There may be some with which I am not able to deal, but I will certainly take steps to follow them up with the necessary information.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield raised the question of conscripts, and argued that conscription will never suit the Royal Air Force. Let me at once admit that a properly manned Air Force must have, as its hard core, a large proportion of highly-trained regular personnel; indeed, that is what we are seeking to achieve. At present, therefore, the size and striking power of the Royal Air Force are restricted by the fact that we have not the balanced pyramid of trained manpower behind the front line, which modern equipment must have if it is to be properly operated. The explanation of this is, of course, that since the end of the war, as the House well knows, the Royal Air Force has demobilised over one million men.
  As regards the regular strength of the Force, this was only 40,000 at the end of the war, of whom 20,000 have since left the Force. At present we have 20,000 men in the Force who were serving in 1939. The regular strength today stands at about 125,000, but I frankly admit that a large number of officers, airmen and airwomen have, at present, far less experience than would be considered necessary in normal times. Of the 100,000 regular airmen and airwomen, 50,000 have less than three years' experience, while only 20,000 were serving in 1939.
  The effective strength of the Royal Air Force is, therefore, lower than the figures of its strength might suggest for the following reasons: First, because the

  409
  average level of experience is very low; second, there is a serious lack of balance between the trades. Some trades are seriously under-manned while there are surpluses in others. We have deficiencies in the radar trades—the radar fitter and the radar mechanic—as well as the wireless fitter and the wireless mechanic, whereas we have a surplus of aircraft fitters and engine fitters, which are just as important trades. That is the state in which we find ourselves today. Third, as one would expect in these conditions, the proportion of men in training at present is high and that, in itself, reacts upon the proportion of staff necessary to engage in training.
  While we are building up the hard core of regulars, therefore, the National Service man is indispensable. At present, for example, there are 109,000 National Service men out of a total of 210,000 airmen who are in the ground trades of the Force. In the past the National Service men, owing to their length of service—this was mostly during the war and after when the average service was two years plus—have often been as valuable as the regular airmen. With the reduced period of 18 months they continue to be essential to fill our manpower requirements. Moreover, although National Service does not provide us with highly skilled, fully trained reserves, it does ensure that the National Service man, who goes to the Reserve, is a semi-skilled tradesman, who will, at any rate, be of some value in the event of a new emergency.
  Before leaving the question of the conscript, it indicates the attraction that the Royal Air Force still has for the youth of our country when I state that in December last 22,000 young men opted for the Royal Air Force out of 59,000 called up; of these 22,000 more than 4,000 expressed a preference for flying duties. That is a very interesting commentary on that particular side of the problem.
  None the less it is our policy that the highest possible proportion of the strength of the Royal Air Force should consist of regulars. It is for this reason that we are seeking, as the Prime Minister said last night, in his broadcast, to stimulate recruiting to the maximum practical extent. We are receiving, in the Royal Air Force, as in the case of
  410
  the Army, assistance from those who are connected with parties other than the Government party. On the question of recruiting, it is only right to say that we are still not attracting enough regular recruits of the right type and quality, but it would be a mistake to think that the present state is as unsatisfactory as is sometimes implied by statements made both in the House and outside.
  Bearing in mind that we have serious-handicaps which did not exist before the war, it is no mean achievement to have maintained the regular recruiting figures at their present rate. I say this in no party spirit, but as a fact, that with the single exception of 1938, the present rate of recruiting exceeds anything which we achieved before the war. In 1937, for example, the intake was about 14,000; in 1948 it was nearly 20,000, and since 1st January, 1946, we have secured well over 100,000 regular recruits. That is no mean record, and it puts a more favourable gloss on the situation than might otherwise have been the case.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely, before the war the Royal Air Force was very much smaller in numbers, the equipment was less complicated and no National Service men were required? The total figure was considerably lower.
  Mr. Henderson: Oh, yes. I was not making a party point. Today, we have a competitor in the fact that we have full employment and a reasonable level of wages, and that has a bearing on the recruiting problem. The Royal Air Force, in 1938, had a Regular strength of 110,000 to 120,000. From what one reads in the newspapers, one would think that the source of supply had almost completely dried up, that people were indifferent to the Royal Air Force and that the youth of the country was no longer interested. I am entitled to point out that in the last two or three years, although we have not got sufficient numbers, we have, nevertheless, recruited well over 100,000.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could express the recruitment for 1947 and 1948 in terms of percentages of the total personnel in the Royal Air Force. We should get a better picture of how recruiting is going if that were possible.
  Mr. Henderson: I cannot do that now, but I will have it done. It will depend on what the respective targets were, and I am not able to say what they were at the moment. I will certainly obtain that Information for the hon. Member.
  Wing-Commander Millington: My right hon. and learned Friend said that 100,000 people had been recruited since 1946. Can he say what percentage of those were trained airmen who re-engaged, and can therefore be used for N.C.O. instructor duties? How many are ab initio and are of comparatively little use to the Royal Air Force until they are trained?
  Mr. Henderson: I am diffident about drawing on my memory where statistics are concerned, but my recollection is that 28,000 are what we call "bounty men" who have re-engaged for three, four or five years. That suggests that the best part of 70,000 came direct from civil life.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made comments about exercise "Sunrise" which took place recently, and was somewhat critical about the information department of the Air Ministry. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) supported him. During the 15 months during which I have served in the Air Ministry I have usually found the information department extremely efficient. Blame cannot always be placed on an information department if there is little publicity of the kind required, because we must have the co-operation of the newspapers. While I certainly have no complaint to make against the newspapers, it is for them to decide to what extent and when they will afford space for the information supplied by the Air Ministry. In connection with "Sunrise," it is true that there were difficulties with one important national newspaper in which I was engaged in controversy, but, broadly speaking, the newspapers adequately published the statements which were issued by the Air Ministry giving the Air Ministry's explanation of what took place during that operation.
  Mr. Teeling: I was not present when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to those points, but I have always found the public relations department at the Air Ministry extremely efficient. It now very often finds itself in
  412
  the position of not being given enough of the right material to sell to the public though that is not its fault.
  Mr. Henderson: I am very glad to have the hon. Gentleman's testimonial to the efficiency of that branch of the Department. It is well deserved. It may well be that a good deal of material is put out through the information department but it is for the newspapers to decide to what extent they will publish it.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) referred to discipline in the Royal Air Force. The subject of re-posting has given me a great deal of anxiety because in my travels I have come in contact with station commanders, probably married men with families, who have been moved to new posts after six or eight months at a particular station. I do not think that is the case by and large throughout the Force. However, we have had additional difficulties by reason of the rundown of personnel. During the war many station commanders were temporary officers and they have been going out under the release scheme. There have been constant vacancies as a result. Those posts have had to be filled.
  That probably meant advancement for certain station commanders—such as from a three-squadron station to a four-squadron station—but to some extent re-posting has been inevitable. I agree entirely with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said when he deprecated re-postings which could be avoided. I will look into the matter again and satisfy myself that everything is being done, as I believe it is, to minimise re-postings.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman was somewhat critical of present leadership in the Force. I believe the hon. Member for Brighton also referred to the need for opportunities for youth. I can, at any rate, say that as a beginning we have just appointed one of the most brilliant fighter-leaders of the war as Commander-in-Chief, Fighter Command, at the age of 46. Air Vice-Marshal Huddleston, whose age is, I believe, 40, has been appointed to a very important post in connection with Western Union defence arrangements. That is a beginning on the road on which those hon. Members wish us to travel.

  413
  It is true that the standards of morale in the Royal Air Force are not entirely satisfactory at present. There are several reasons for this. By the time the war ended the Royal Air Force had expanded many times over, to a peak strength of 1,250,000 men and women. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that as a result there was an acute shortage of experienced officers and non-commissioned officers, and officers and airmen with pre-war experience were often promoted to assume responsibilities for which they had not the necessary background and training. Moreover, during the war trained officers were pre-occupied with operational tasks. General duties officers, in particular, had very little time to devote to the welfare of the ground airmen. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said—and I have always taken that view—one cannot attach too much importance to the welfare of the men. I believe that the real test of a fighting Force lies in the morale of the Force as well as in its training, and its morale depends upon the way the personnel are looked after. That does not mean bedroom lamps or taking the men breakfast in bed; it just means giving them reasonable living conditions, reasonable prospects of a career, and the assurance and feeling that they are being treated as human beings and not merely as machines.
  The deterioriation in discipline and morale led the Air Council, at the end of 1946, to issue instructions to Commanders-in-Chief that steps were to be taken to secure a marked and steady improvement in the discipline of the Service. I know the term "man management" is not a colourful one, but specific training in man management is given during officer training and at various stages of his career an officer will fill posts in which this responsibility is pronounced. The effect of this re-emphasis on the responsibility of the junior officers will only be felt gradually throughout the Service, as time passes.
  It would take me some time to deal with the many points that have been raised, so I will deal with one on the technical side. After all, this is a technical Force. The hon. and gallant Member raised a measure of criticism of the three-prong system. First I will deal with centralised servicing, which is a new scheme in the Force. This means
  414
  that certain operations are carried out centrally on a station instead of separately in each squadron or flight. No doubt in the early days the practice was to do the servicing in the flight, but now it is by no means a revolutionary departure because in some cases workshops were centralised on stations before the war. All that has happened has been that the centralising of servicing has been carried a little further. The object is simply to save manpower. This is not a question of planning in relation to any political programme; this is a scheme that has been evolved within the Service itself by the officers who have spent their lives in the Service, and who, apparently, have come to the conclusion that this method would save skilled manpower. It works out that a given number of men in a central scheme can do the work of a much larger number of tradesmen separated into small parties. There is also a saving in that they need fewer highly trained supervisors.
  The objection, as was pointed out, is that the squadron tends to become less of a self-contained unit, but we cannot put the clock back. For one thing, we cannot afford, either in war or peace, to waste skilled men and, for another, whether we like it or not, the days are past when the general duties officer could have enough technical knowledge to supervise all the work of technical servicing. No doubt, in the past, when firearms were first introduced it was pointed out that the use of the bow was beter for the physique and probably for the moral qualities of the troops, but there comes a point when technical efficiency must over-ride such considerations if wars are to be won. On the other hand, we have not been led blindfold by the technicians in this matter, because the dangers of too centralised a system have been well known for many years. I do not believe, that centralisation in the Royal Air Force has been carried to the limit. For example, daily servicing has been left with the squadrons under the squadron commanders.
  The three-prong system, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, is as he knows, not a product of the centralised system. It is quite different. It is simply a recognition of the fact that the responsibilities of the R.A.F. commander lie in three main fields: flying, administration and servicing. I, for one, would not under

  415
  estimate the tremendous importance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman attaches to flying, and to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) referred in his jocular remark at the beginning of his speech, but I think they will both agree that there would be little flying done if there were not the most efficient and adequate servicing behind it. Therefore we have divided this responsibility into these three categories which provide the commander of the station with a deputy in each field. The head of the flying staff is, of course, a general duties officer, and the head of the administrative staff is frequently one. The head of the technical staff is normally a technical officer and, I think, rightly so.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the Royal Air Force Regiment, and asked why it was necessary to have such a body in existence. There may be two views about the Royal Air Force Regiment; there probably are. There may be others besides the hon. and gallant Gentleman who take the view that there is no need for it, but the primary and most important task of the Regiment is to work out and keep alive the technique of airfield defence—infiltration, saboteurs, air attack by parachutists. We all know from the experiences of the Second World War how important it is, and how disastrous it was in many cases when airfields which were not properly defended by ground Forces were attacked by parachutists. Therefore we seek to do two things: to provide an Armed Force which will have the responsibility of providing for the defences of airfields, and also provide skilled instructors to train the R.A.F. as a whole in ground combat.
  After all, this is a technical force. Its primary function is not ground combat but, in days of modern war, it is common ground that anyone concerned in any one of the three Services, even though it may be in an administrative capacity, should be trained to play his part in the event of sudden attack, for example, by parachutists. The task of defending its airfields falls on the Royal Air Force as a whole, and this means that the R.A.F. personnel on any station, whatever their individual trades, must be capable of
  416
  providing the bulk of the defence Force. The full-time Royal Air Force Regiment which, incidentally, at the moment totals only about 2½ per cent. of the strength of the whole Royal Air Force, is the means by which we seek to achieve that end.
  With regard to the extra flying pay for the general duties officer above the rank of flying officer, the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the general duties officer of these ranks should be given extra flying pay. He said that in the General Duties Branch the inclusive rate of flying officers and pilot officers is 3s. a day higher than that for officers of the non-professional ground branches, but that the rates for the higher ranks are the same as those for the corresponding ranks of the ground branches. He was quite fair in admitting that there are compensations. The General Duties Branch officers receive compensation in that they receive promotion to flight lieutenant after 3½ years' total service, as compared with six years in the Secretarial and Equipment Branches.
  Promotion to the higher ranks, of course, is by selection to meet establishment requirements, but it is anticipated that General Duties Branch officers will, on the average, be promoted to squadron leader four years, and to wing commander six years earlier than officers of the Technical Branch. I consider that that is a very reasonable compensation for the alteration which took place in 1945 after the new code came into operation whereby this extra flying pay was restricted to the junior officers of the G.D. Branch.
  In conclusion, I echo the words of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and, in spite of any misgivings there might be, I have certainly never sought to mislead the House or the nation by under-estimating the difficulties which confront the Royal Air Force today in view of the position in which it finds itself following the three years of rundown. I hope that when we have to deal with the Estimates I shall be in a position, if not to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman all the information for which he asks, at any rate to submit a progress report indicating that we are seeking to carry out what I said we would try to do in my Estimates speech last March—

  417
  to commence building up what I called the third Royal Air Force. I said then that that would take time. I said, for example, that many of the trades in groups A and B take up to two years to train. I have already said tonight that 100,000 have come in during the last three years. To borrow a phrase which was used yesterday, I think it would be a criminal act on my part, or on the part of any other responsible Minister dealing with the Royal Air Force, to suggest that in a matter of months, or even a year or two years, we shall be able to produce an efficient and balanced Air Force comparable with what we had in the peak days during the war.
  I believe, however, that in spite of the difficulties with which the Royal Air Force is confronted today, the spirit of the officers and men, on the whole, is extremely good; that in spite of the suggestions which have been made in various quarters outside this House, the morale throughout the Service on the whole is good, that, broadly speaking, discipline, although it can always be improved, is not in such a state as to cause us any anxiety, and that there is still a great deal of pride throughout all ranks of the Royal Air Force and a feeling that they are well able and willing to maintain, if necessary, the great traditions of the Royal Air Force of the past.

  GERMAN ASSETS, UNITED KINGDOM
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: Largely owing to the efficiency of the Royal Air Force in the war, I am able to draw the attention of the House to one of the aspects of German reparations. The subject I want to raise is the serious failure on the part of the Treasury to stand up for the rights of British creditors against German debtors. I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for coming here this evening, but I do not think I need apologise to him for the short notice which he has had of my intention to raise this matter, since it is entirely the fault of the Treasury that the occasion is so urgent.
  When the war ended, the representatives of the United Nations met in Paris to discuss the problem of German reparations, and in December, 1945, the Paris Reparations Agreement was published.
  418
  Article 6 of that Agreement deals with German External assets, and paragraph A of that Article says:
  "Each Signatory Government shall, under such procedures as it may choose, hold or dispose of German enemy assets within its jurisdiction in manners designed to preclude their return to German ownership or control and shall charge against its reparation share such assets (net of accrued taxes, liens …"
  There was apparently some doubt as to the precise meaning of that Article, and two months later, in January, 1946, Accounting Rules were published which defined beyond any shadow of dispute what was meant by the words which I have just read.
  In Article 6 (D) of these Rules these words appear:
  "In applying the provisions of paragraph A above, assets which were the property of a country which is a member of the United Nations or its nationals who were not nationals of Germany at the time of the occupation or annexation of this country by Germany, or of its entry into war, shall not be charged to its reparation account."
  The upshot of this is that each signatory to the Paris Agreement has the right to use German assets within its jurisdiction in the first place to satisfy the legal claims of its nationals against former German owners of those assets.
  In other words, where a British bank had lent money to a German bank or a German firm, if the British bank possessed securities against its loan, under the Reparations Agreement it is open to His Majesty's Government to collect those German securities whose owners owe specific debts to British creditors, and out of them to satisfy the British creditors before putting into the general reparations pool what is left over after that procedure. I understand that the right to set off these German assets in this country against the claims of British creditors is an optional right, and the Government can choose whether to exercise it or not. I understand they must make up their minds by 24th January, 1949—next Monday. That is the last day when the Reparations Office in Brussels can, under these agreements, receive the decision of His Majesty's Government accompanied by the list of British claims.
  Three years have gone by. Last May this subject was ventilated at considerable length in the Press. Articles appeared in the "Financial Times" pointing out the enormous advantage to Great

  419
  Britain if this right of satisfaction of our national creditors were exercised by His Majesty's Government. We now know that the Governments of the United States and the Netherlands, and, for all I know, other United Nations Governments, are availing themselves of this right. Any country which does not do so and puts into the general pool all the German assets which they have seized inside the territory under their jurisdiction, will only get back that proportion which is allotted to them in the final share out. In the case of Great Britain we will get back only 28 per cent. which is our share of the pool of German assets, so that for every £100 which His Majesty's Government put into this pool and which might have gone wholly to satisfy one of these British creditors, we shall lose £72.
  To the astonishment of those who represent the British claims against German debtors a letter was received in December last giving the Treasury's decision not to avail themselves of the right of paragraph 6 (A) of the Paris Agreement to set off the German assets here against the British claims. I do not know what precisely was the reason behind this refusal. In the letter some very obscure words were used to the effect that it would favour one creditor against another if the right were exercised. If the right were exercised those creditors who have been prudent enough to secure some form of lien on German property against the loan they had advanced would get 100 per cent. repayment of their credit if the security is big enough, and there would therefore be less in the pool with which to satisfy other British creditors who never had any specific hold upon some German property.
  The explanation given in the letter presupposes that His Majesty's Government were thinking only of the right to set off a specific piece of German property against the debt to which it had been attached. I understand that nothing of that kind is being done in the United States. What they are doing is to collect all the German assets and put them into a pool, and from that pool to satisfy all the claims of United States nationals whether those claims were tied up or not to any particular form of collateral security. Then, if there is any balance left over, the United States will put it into the general reparation pool out of which
  420
  they will get 28 per cent. and Great Britain will get 28 per cent.
  This matter was raised in another place this week, when the answer of the Government spokesman was unsatisfactory. The same answer would have been given to my Question on today's Order Paper which was not reached. I have been courteously given a copy of the answer by the Treasury. The Treasury now say that they want all British creditors having these claims to put them in as quickly as possible before the last day, which is next Monday, which is three years after the time when the Treasury might have started this process, and that they are still considering whether or not to take any action under paragraph 6 (A). That is not good enough. The British creditors want a firm assurance now that the same procedure as is applied in the United States to protect United States creditors of Germany will be adopted here and that conditions at least as favourable will be given to British creditors. Why should we make a present to the rest of the United Nations in the way that is suggested?
  I want a specific assurance that the method which the Treasury will adopt will be to aggregate all the German assets in this country into one fund out of which all British claims will be first settled before any balance at all is paid into the general reparations pool. I have read carefully the original Agreement and the accounting rules that were published afterwards. So far as I can understand those documents—and they seem to me perfectly plain—His Majesty's Government have the right to do that. I want the Economic Secretary to tell us when he replies whether he agrees that we have the right to do the same as is being done by the United States Government. That right seems explicit in these documents. We want an assurance that that is the Government's policy.
  I must say in conclusion that for a Department like the Treasury to leave this matter till within four days of the final date, and after three years have gone by, implies either that they are not willing to take the trouble, or for some other reason which the Economic Secretary may give us, to save this country approximately 72 per cent. of £14 million. My information is that the proportion of the standstill credits given

  421
  by persons who are able to trace their debt through to a piece of German property to which it has been tied up is something in the neighbourhood of £12 million, to which another £2 million has to be added. We can get the whole of that £14 million for the British creditors, whereas if we put it into the pool we shall get only 28 per cent. of the £14 million. That is the situation and I hope very much that we shall have a clear answer about it from the Economic Secretary.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): So far from complaining of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) for raising this matter at rather short notice, I would assure him that we are very grateful to him for this opportunity of giving publicity to the fact that claims should be put in, as he has said, before 24th January, in the case of those who think they have a claim on these assets.
  The hon. Member rehearsed the main facts of the story—adequately, I think—but in one respect he went a little astray. He said that this was an issue between German debtors on the one hand and the claims of British creditors on the other. That really is not the main issue. What makes this a very difficult matter is that the main issue is between different classes of British creditors. There are two broad classes of British creditors who are concerned with the German assets now held by the Custodian of Enemy Property. First of all, there are those British creditors who have a claim on a German debtor who was the owner of some of the assets now held in this country. Those were British creditors who, as the hon. Member said, can trace their claims to a specific asset in this country. The other broad class consists of those who are not in that position and who cannot make a specific claim: for instance, there are the holders of the old Dawes and Young Bonds.
  Broadly speaking, there are three courses which the British Government can adopt. First, they can do what the hon. Member was advising them to do—treat all German assets now held by the Custodian as a general fund out of which to pay all British creditors of Germany. That course would treat all creditors alike. The second possible course is to
  422
  regard those specific assets as a fund to be handed over to the creditors with specific claims upon it. According to the agreement, if we adopt the course, as the hon. Member wants us to, of offsetting these specific assets, against the amounts which we have to pay into the general reparations fund, we have to give preferential treatment to the specific creditors as compared with the general creditors.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is that 100 per cent. preferential treatment?
  Mr. Jay: It amounts to that, in effect. Thirdly, there is the method of taking the whole of the assets which are held into the Exchequer generally, on the ground that the country as a whole, and almost everybody in it, lost something by the war either in money or in other ways, and that the fairest course would be to share it out in that fashion.
  One could argue a long time about those three possible courses of action. Against the first course it could be argued that to make a general division between the general creditors would be unfair to the specific creditors, who in that case would not get so much and feel they ought to be met out of the specific assets they claim. It might be argued that that would be unfair to the community as a whole. They would get no benefit from these assets for they would only go to the creditors of all kinds.
  If we adopt the second course, which is most favourable to the creditors with specific claims—who are mainly the old short term creditors involved in the standstill debts in the 1930's—it would be argued by the other creditors that that was unfair to them. They would say that it was a pure accident of history that certain assets of prewar German owners in this country happened to be owned by the same German individuals who were the debtors to the corresponding creditors here. It could be argued that that was a matter of chance and therefore if we followed that course of action it would be unfair to other creditors.
  Thirdly, if we adopted the rough justice of saying that these debts must be considered due to the whole British community and took the whole amount into the Exchequer, no doubt all the creditors would argue that that was unfair to them. I think there is no obvious and clearly

  423
  correct way out of this dilemma. Arguments can be put up for the three main alternatives—and indeed for variations of them—and tonight I cannot give a definite assurance that we will adopt any of those specific courses. We are still considering the alternatives in an attempt to discover which is the most fair to all the creditors concerned. While doing that, however, we want to give the utmost publicity to the fact that we wish these claims to be registered before 24th January, so that if we choose to adopt the alternative which depends on those claims being registered, it will be open for us to do so and the position will be entirely protected. In order to safeguard that, and to take the opportunity to give the widest possible publicity to this opportunity for registering claims, perhaps I might read the official announcement made by the Treasury a few days ago. Perhaps it did not receive quite as much publicity as we wished. The announcement was as follows:
  "His Majesty's Government have arranged for the following procedure to be followed by United Kingdom creditors of persons in Germany who have reason to believe that their debtor had assets in the United Kingdom but have not hitherto claimed against assets of that debtor. The claims should be lodged without delay and, if possible, before 24th January; claims received on or after 24th January may be subject to different treatment from those received before. At the moment all that is required is simply notification of the debt (including the debtor's name and address) and of any assets believed to have been held by the debtor. The notification should be addressed to the Administration of Enemy Property Department (Branch X), 32, Warwick Street, Regent Street, W.1.
  "United Kingdom creditors who have already claimed against the assets of their German debtor (including persons who have made claims to a Custodian of Enemy Property) should also write to the Administration of Enemy Property Department at an early date (but not necessarily during the week) giving particulars of the previous correspondence and of any assets they believe were held by their debtor at the outbreak of war.
  "His Majesty's Government emphasises that the present action does no more than safeguard the position of creditors, should the eventual decision be that the United Kingdom should avail itself of its rights under Article 6 (a) of Part I of the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparation."
  Sir William Darling: What is the date of that announcement?
  Mr. Jay: The date is 18th January. Having made that announcement we hope
  424
  that everything possible has been done to safeguard this situation and it will be entirely open to us, if on consideration that appears to be the fairest way, to make the type of distribution which the hon. Member advises. But in thanking him for giving us this chance to give publicity to the matter, I cannot say definitely which alternative we shall adopt.
  Mr. Eccles: Will the hon. Gentleman say by which date His Majesty's Government have to make up their minds whether they put these British assets into the pool? Can he give an assurance that—whatever may be the decision about the ways in which they are shared in this country—in no circumstances will they be put into the general pool?
  Mr. Jay: I cannot give an assurance that we shall in no circumstances put them into the general pool, but the significance of 24th January is that under the rules of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency claims by specific creditors have to be registered with the British Government before 24th January if we are to avail ourselves of the rights under Article 6 (A).
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: I must confess I cannot regard this as a satisfactory situation. We have here an option, which was posed to us as far back as 1945, nearly four years ago. We are now taking last-minute steps, four days before the expiry of the time limit in which on certain essential things we have to end that option, certain action to safeguard our position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the allocation of the assets among various classes of creditors in this country is difficult. I agree that there are arguments for and against all three of the alternatives he suggested, but the Government have had more than three years to consider the respective merits, and surely during that time they could have arrived at a decision.
  It seems to me that as matters now stand there is grave risk that certain creditors may be gravely prejudiced. It is not very long for an announcement only made on 18th January to percolate to numerous people all over the country and enable them to register their claims by 24th January. I take it that any individual who has not registered his claims by then

  425
  will lose his right. The 24th is the date by which all claims have to be registered. I think it is quite intolerable and wholly unnecessary that any risk should have been run—if the Government finally decide to exercise their option—and that any individual who might have benefited from that option should be unable to do so. We unhesitatingly condemn the indecision in this case. I do not think it is even a humane indecision which has prevented the Government reaching any conclusion up to now.
  I pass to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made. Are we to understand that the Government are not bound, by 24th January, to have decided and to notify the authorities that they are going to exercise this option, and that if they do not take any steps before 24th January it will be none of these three difficult alternatives to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but a fourth—that is of paying out all the assets we hold in this country into the general pool and trusting to luck as to the amount we shall get back?
  Difficult as it may be to hold the scales fairly between different classes of creditors in this country, an even more overriding consideration is what the net benefit is to be to the nation. if by exercising the option, we are likely in the long run to get from the country as a whole a bigger share of reparations than by refusing to exercise that option, then we should exercise that option, even if it does lead to certain difficulties and perhaps certain grievances in the distribution within the country of the assets that are available.
  We have to bear in mind what the country as a whole is to get out of it. I desire the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that a decision of a kind which may mean some millions to the finances of this country has not to be made by next Monday, because if that is so, it is tragic that a Minister should come here on a question of this importance on a Thursday evening and say that the Government cannot yet make up their minds upon a matter which they have finally to decide by Monday of next week. I hope it will be possible for that difficult process of coming to a decision soon to be completed. This matter has been drawn out beyond all possible apology. We have now had considerable experience of the Government. We
  426
  give them one year for consideration, we give them a second year for active consideration, we give them a third year for urgent consideration; but at the end of that period we think that a decision should be taken. They have had the whole of these three years. The time has now come when they should take the plunge.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: If I may have the leave of the House, since the right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions, I will answer them. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked why this announcement was not made sooner. He may be partly under a misconception about the facts. The fact is that in any case the great majority of these creditors, and all who are concerned with any large sums, have registered their claims long ago, and have been continually in touch with the Treasury throughout recent months. The whole subject has been repeatedly discussed. It is certain that so far as any large sums are concerned, this action was quite unnecessary.
  Mr. Stanley: Is the hon. Gentleman only concerned with large creditors?
  Mr. Jay: No. That is one of the reasons why I was about to say that we thought it necessary, as a final safeguard, to make a public statement in addition.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the British Government had to decide on their course of action on this point before 24th January. The answer is: No, we do not have to decide vis-à-vis the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency by 24th January, but we cannot decide in the particular fashion which the right hon. Gentleman has recommended, after that date unless these claims have been registered by 24th January. Therefore, we are entirely protected. It is perfectly free and open to us after 24th January, to choose whichever alternative seems the most equitable.
  Mr. Eccles: May I, by leave of the House, ask the Economic Secretary how he can square what he has said with the facts which he knows? He knows that in December a letter signed by the Governor of the Bank of England went round saying the Treasury were not going to exercise their rights under Article 6 (A). This decision implied that none of this collection of information was to be under

  427
  taken. He knows the trouble that followed in the City of London, and that Lord Woolton raised the matter in another place last Tuesday. It was in answer to a question put in another place that the Government went back on their decision. They announced that they would collect the information which would not have been wanted if a decision had been taken once and for all not to exercise the right under Article 6 (A). The Economic Secretary cannot get away with the sort of explanation which we have just had.
  Mr. Jay: I do not quite know what course the hon. Member wants us to adopt. If we are to adopt the course which I understand him to be recommending tonight, it is necessary for us to take the action which we have taken. I should have thought that to that extent the hon. Member would be grateful to be told that we do not close our minds against that alternative. That is as far as I can go in giving him an assurance tonight.
  Mr. Eccles: I am grateful for the fact that the Treasury have reconsidered their decision, but I am not grateful when a Minister says that the only reason his Department have asked for this information late, was because they intended all the time to put in these claims on 24th January, when they had written round the City saying that they were not going to exercise the right. It is no use the Economic Secretary expressing dissent. He can see for himself a copy of the letter which stirred up all this trouble, a letter in which the Bank of England announced the decision of the Treasury.
  I welcome the fact that some reconsideration is proceeding but I now want the assurance which we have not yet got tonight that these assets will not be put into the pool. If they are, Great Britain will get only 28 per cent. instead of the whole amount. I believe that the correct course is that all the creditors should be satisfied out of this pool but if some people have been prudent enough to tie up a specific debt against a specific piece of German property, why should they not be rewarded for their prudence by getting some priority? It seems common business sense that they should do.

  OLD PEOPLE'S PARTY, OLDHAM
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish to raise a matter which affects the town which I have the honour to represent. In this year of grace, 1949, Oldham will celebrate the centenary of its inception as a borough, and in doing so the whole of Oldham—men of all creeds, parties and classes—will unite together in a series of celebrations which I believe will be unparalleled in the history of the town. Oldham has the right to claim the indulgence of this House, not only because of its long representation in this House, going back to long before it became a borough, or because Cobbett was its first Member, but because it can claim to have made a unique contribution to our prosperity. In its long history men of Oldham fought in the Armada; troops of Bonnie Prince Charlie were at Oldham; men of Oldham fought with courage at Waterloo and Peterloo. The Oldham inquest on Peterloo is a matter of history.
  On this occasion Oldham will, as I have said, look back on the last hundred years of its history, during which it has faced the vicissitudes of industrial life with indomitable fortitude and courage, and with hope and confidence for the future. During these celebrations it is natural, right and eminently proper that there should be a desire to pay some special tribute to the old people of the town who have contributed to its prosperity by long years of industry and often by long years of privation.
  I wish to correct any misapprehension, if there be any, about the way I put a Question yesterday. I had approached the right hon. Lady on this matter before, and I apologised for raising it again at short notice. In doing so, I suffer more than she does. I have had no opportunity of refreshing myself with papers which I hope she has now had an opportunity to look at. She always receives me with courtesy, as she did on this occasion, but I have not yet obtained the result which I hope to obtain in the course of the evening.
  A request was made, a modest one, it might even appear to be a trifling one, but it is one of fundamental principle and of fundamental importance, and it is right that the House should spend a

  429
  few minutes dealing with the matter. We are not asking for anything extra for the aged people. The town is organising on an unprecedented scale what Lancashire calls a "high tea," though I must say that what Lancashire used to call a "high tea" is not what it is able to call a "high tea" today.
  I do not want to utter one word of controversy, but I have to say this because it is a matter of comment in Oldham. Many people read in the papers about turtles being brought by air for the Lord Mayor's banquet and being fed on champagne and oysters to produce the appropriate flavour for soup. I admit that the Ministry of Food had nothing to do with that. It is one more manifestation of the individualism of private enterprise. Many read of it with disgust, and none wants to read of it again.
  We have several thousand old age pensioners who will, we hope, be present on this occasion. There may be more, but we realise that some will be prevented from attending by infirmity and sickness. If we were able to engage caterers, rations would, of course, be available. Because this is an effort to be conducted by the town itself, not by any party, but by the borough under the auspices of the Mayor and Corporation, because of a technicality, rations are not obtainable. It is to deal with that technicality that I am raising his matter tonight. If it were a meeting of Elks or a meeting of Buffalos, or a meeting of any of the many organisations that properly meet together from time to time to engage in festivities, they would hire a caterer and they would get rations. All we are asking tonight is that arrangements should be made for these old people to have a little meat, no more than they would be entitled to, on this one occasion in a hundred years so that we shall not have to abandon this historic event because of a mere comma or semicolon in a Regulation of the Ministry of Food. If there be such a comma or semicolon, we could take it out in ten minutes and put the matter right.
  I hope my right hon. Friend will not say that our rules and regulations must be observed. Most of our greatest successes have been achieved by people who sometimes had sense enough to know that there are times when rules can conveniently and properly be ignored. After
  430
  all, if Nelson had not ignored rules he would have lost his great battle, and we might not have been here discussing this matter tonight. It is not beyond the bounds of ingenuity and ability to devise a method to prevent this important function from being abandoned. I would be content not to receive meat; indeed, I personally would prefer ox tongue to corned beef if it be a matter of rations, but I do ask the right hon. Lady to say tonight that she thinks this application is an exceptional one and will regard it with sympathy and understanding. I ask her to see that we do not have to abandon this historic and important event in Oldham, upon which the town is embarking with such a sense of municipal feeling and with so real justification.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Delargy: I strongly support the innocent and very sensible request of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). After all, the centenary of the historic borough of Oldham occurs, as the more perceptive Members will readily observe, only once in a hundred years, and therefore the danger of establishing a precedent is somewhat remote. I know very well that the Minister could produce arguments against this request, arguments precise, pedantic, logical and dull, as dull as the menu in a London restaurant. But we are not asking for logic and regulations tonight. We are asking for a generous gesture, a warm hearted gesture in the midst of cold officialdom.
  The granting of this request will not decrease our meat stocks. It will not require very lengthy negotiations or even require the permission of Senor Miranda But it will give pleasure to a group of aged people who are celebrating a great achievement of their town. In other words, it will encourage them in their civic pride. The pride and love of one's own town or village or parish is something to be encouraged. For those reasons therefore which I am certain that the right hon. Lady will have found to be overwhelming and compelling, I hope that she will accede to the request made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I wish particularly to support the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) in the plea put forward on behalf of the old age pensioners of Oldham. I do so because the old age

  431
  pensioners at the present moment, whatever may be said in this House or outside, are having a very lean time with the rations that they get. And surely the celebration of the centenary of Oldham is the day when the Ministry of Food should at least put a little bit of elastic into the regulations.
  I have read the speeches made from time to time in the country by the right hon. Lady and when she has been questioned about her sympathies towards old people, she has always said she has every sympathy with the old folks. Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Lady and her Department to manifest that sympathy in a real and practical way. We have a saying in Lancashire that "sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef." We are asking for the beef, what little it is, to be conceded to these old folks. We are not asking her or her Department to perform the miracle of the five barley loaves and the two small fishes. But there is a possibility, and I know that in the right hon. Lady's Department they have the ingenuity and the wit and the business acumen to make this concession to the old folk.
  In 1951 in this country there will be a magnificent festival. There will be no need for any person at that festival to make application to the Department of the right hon. Lady for rations. It will be conceded to them without any request at all. Surely when the hon. Member for Oldham and the Borough Council of Oldham and all the institutions that will participate in this great celebration so strongly desire it, the old folks are entitled to the concession which has been applied for.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I know very little about the town of Oldham, but I am very eager to support this application. In fact, all I know about the town of Oldham may be summed up in the names of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and Mr. Wilfred Mannion. Because Oldham has lost Wilfred Mannion, that seems to me all the better reason why they should have their old pensioners' tea. However, I am sure that kind of argument will not appeal to the Ministry of Food. They would prefer an argument more on the grounds of
  432
  statistics. After my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham had approached me about this matter, and put the case as powerfully as he has done this evening, I went to the Library and looked up statistics which will appeal to the Ministry of Food. I have been discovering how many boroughs in this country would be celebrating their centenary, and how much meat would be involved if this proposal were carried out. I have not finished my researches, but I discovered that a great number of our cities and towns would not be involved if the Ministry were to say that they would at any rate relax their regulations in the case of centenary teas. It would not involve a great amount of meat.
  Even if the idea were encouraged that every borough should ransack its history to discover exactly when it became a borough and to discover the famous men who had represented it throughout the years, would it not be a good thing? Would it not encourage municipal consciousness? I prophesy that there is not one hon. Member in this House tonight, except my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who knows when the centenary of his own borough is to be. If the Ministry of Food relax their regulations, I am sure that every hon. Member will look up the date early tomorrow morning. This will not involve a great amount of meat, and what a centenary it would be in Oldham.
  Oldham is a famous city. It has had a wonderful reputation, from the time of William Cobbett to the present day. As far as I know, there is no monument to Cobbett in this country. He is one of the most famous men who ever fought for the people. Surely, the Ministry of Food ought to pay their tribute to William Cobbett who at a time of tremendous distress throughout the countryside, fought for the right of the British people to produce food from their own soil. He fought against the financiers and against all those hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House, who have scuttled from this Debate today. It is most significant that when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham raised this question, there was only one representative of the Conservative Party present. I hope he will give the official view of his party.
  On all these grounds, it would be a fine thing if it went out from the House

  433
  of Commons tonight that owing to the appeal made in this most democratic of all Assemblies, it had been said that, whatever the regulations, the Ministry of Food were sending out a message to the country, "To hell with the regulations. We are not concerned about them; we are more concerned about what we believe to be the humane thing and what, after examination, we believe to be the practical thing." The Ministry ought to say that they will make this allowance, which will do honour to a great city, to those who have represented that city and to those who have taken the trouble to come along here and to fight for this cause tonight. I have the greatest admiration for the Ministry of Food. I regard the attacks made upon them as the most flagrant and frivolous propaganda. On these grounds, let them come forward and show what a really humane Ministry they are.
  8.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I have always looked upon the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) as a friend, but tonight I find that he comes along and presents a united front with Oldham, Platting and Ince. He asked me to say tonight, "To hell with the regulations." I do not think it would be parliamentary to reply to these suggestions. However, I want to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). There is no need for him to tell me of the history of his great town. Perhaps he will remember that I contested the Division of Bury in 1934. On several occasions I was invited to Oldham by some of his constituents and there I partook of a high tea. I know full well what it means. A few minutes ago the hon. Member came into the Members Tea Room where I was taking one miserable cup of tea. From that he gathered that I did not know what he was talking about. I assure him that I am so bullied by hon. Members that I have only time for an ordinary cup of tea. Perhaps one day when I am up in Oldham he will invite me along for a high tea. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked me to use my ingenuity, wit and business acumen, and said that then this problem would be solved. Unfortunately, it is not wit that they are asking for: it is meat.
  434
  I thought it was significant tonight that not one woman Member intervened, although I see that there is a woman Member sitting on the back benches. Women are mindful of the fact that two days ago my Department had to cut the meat ration from 1s. to 10d. so far as carcase meat is concerned and we had to supplement that 10d. worth of carcase meat by 2d. worth of corned meat. That means a certain amount of hardship to every home in the country. I must remind the hon. Member for Oldham that this is not a question of my hard heart. It is a question of meat supplies.
  Mr. Hale: I am sure the right hon. Lady has misunderstood the application which we are making, because this is all bilge. It has nothing to do with the matter. The position simply is that if we employ a caterer we shall get certain rations, but the caterer gets a profit which makes the venture prohibitive. We want permission to do exactly the same thing without the caterer. We do not ask for a farthing's worth more. This would not affect the meat situation because, if there were wealthy enough men in Oldham to pay the money for this occasion, we should get it by employing some one to do the catering. All we ask is for permission to do this without the intervention of the caterer.
  Dr. Summerskill: Actually, the hon. Member is wrong. Caterers cannot supply meat for a tea.
  Mr. Hale: This is a high tea, and a high tea is a dinner.
  Dr. Summerskill: Under the regulations one is not allowed to supply meat for a tea meal. The reason why we have to allow caterers to cater for parties is that the Ministry must exercise some control over food. It would be wrong and irresponsible for my Department to say to any hon. Member who asks for meat for 8,000 people for a tea, "Yes, you can have it without any control whatever." That is why we use the caterers. It is for the purpose of exercising control.
  Mr. Hale: The borough corporation are to control this tea.
  Dr. Summerskill: I must ask the hon. Member to exercise a little patience.
  I want hon. Members to realise what this means. We are invited tonight to

  435
  supply meat for 8,000 people for a tea party. In this country today there are 7 million people who qualify for the old age pension. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, who is always a great friend of the old age pensioners, will agree with me when I say that it would be only fair for these 7 million people in different parts of the country, in their various organisations, if they heard of some concession tonight, to ask for a similar concession. It would be entirely wrong for me then to come to this House and to say to hon. Members who represent the constituencies of those old people that they could not enjoy the same concession enjoyed by the constituents of the hon. Member for Oldham. I hope that hon. Members will realise that, although I am observing the regulations, I am observing them in the interests of every Member in this House and in the interests of the old age pensioners.
  Furthermore, we give old age pensioners certain extra foods on occasions when they want to have a particular party. For instance they are given certain allowances for golden weddings, but we never give them meat. I think that every one in this House would ask why, if we were to give meat for a centenary, should we not give these poor old people a little meat for their golden weddings. We give extras for christenings and for funerals and for certain other events. The hon. Member is asking for a concession which we have never made on other occasions. When he raised this matter with my right hon. Friend yesterday he said that he could get the meat from Australia. He asked my right hon. Friend whether he might get in touch with his friends in Australia and bring the meat to the old age pensioners in that way. He rather suggested that we were tied by red tape, because whereas he could get it from Australia——
  Mr. Hale: Really, the right hon. Lady is misrepresenting me——
  Dr. Summerskill: No, I must carry on with my speech. Then, the hon. Member put this supplementary question:
  "In these circumstances, would my right hon. Friend give permission for application to be made abroad individually for meat to be sent for this occasion?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 163.]
  Mr. Hale: Yes, in the circumstances disclosed in the answer given by the Minister.
  Dr. Summerskill: I want to remind the hon. Member of what it would mean. We are at the moment contracting to take the exportable surplus of meat from Australia. It would only mean that we should be taking meat that would otherwise go towards the domestic rations of this country.
  Mr. Hale: But the Minister allows the wealthy to have food parcels.
  Dr. Summerskill: But the food parcels are limited to a certain amount, for precisely that reason—to prevent people sending to Australia and asking for meat for a thousand people. That is absolutely prohibited.
  Therefore, I want the House to realise that we have to do this. I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham will realise that this is not a pleasant thing for me to have to do. I am always having to say "No," but I look forward to the day when I can say "Yes." I find it extremely unpleasant to have to say "No" to the old age pensioners, but, in this case, if we made a concession, then it would be only right that hon. Members in every part of the House should be able to come to me and say "Well, you did for one hon. Member; I ask you to do it for others." I would not be able to refuse. I want to tell the House that, when the hon. Member wrote to me, we said that we certainly were not unsympathetic. We said that, although we could not give meat, we would give an allowance of tea, milk, sugar and margarine for 8,000 people. I can only suggest that this tea should be given and the meal supplemented with unrationed foods. Perhaps the borough could make arrangements to supply fish and potatoes——
  Mr. Hale: What, cook 7,000 pieces of fish and serve them, hot or cold?
  Dr. Summerskill: Now, the hon Member is talking about details of administration, and it is not for me to go into that. If that unrationed food were prepared, I am quite sure that the old age pensioners would have a successful party.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Nine o'Clock.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hearing Aid
  Hearing Aid
  Hospitals (Administrative Appointments)
  Hospitals (Administrative Appointments)
  Hospitals (Gifts)
  Hospitals (Gifts)
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Epileptics
  Epileptics
EDUCATION
  Polish Ex-Service Personnel
  Polish Ex-Service Personnel
  Special Schools Examination
  Special Schools Examination
  School Milk and Meals
  School Milk and Meals
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sports Goods
  Sports Goods
  Pottery (Exports to New Zealand)
  Pottery (Exports to New Zealand)
  Trident Furniture
  Trident Furniture
  Scottish Exports
  Scottish Exports
  Books (Imports)
  Books (Imports)
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, SCOTTISH AREA
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, SCOTTISH AREA
  COAL INDUSTRY (MACHINERY)
  COAL INDUSTRY (MACHINERY)
EMPLOYMENT
  Cardiff and Rhondda
  Cardiff and Rhondda
  Electrical Plant Firms,
  Electrical Plant Firms,
  Miners (Lodging Allowance)
  Miners (Lodging Allowance)
  Wage Increases
  Wage Increases
  BANKSIDE POWER STATION
  BANKSIDE POWER STATION
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Child Allowance)
  Income Tax (Child Allowance)
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Debts to Britain
  Debts to Britain
  European Co-operation
  European Co-operation
  German Assets
  German Assets
  U.S. Strip Cartoons
  U.S. Strip Cartoons
  Age Allowance (Limit)
  Age Allowance (Limit)
  Special Contribution
  Special Contribution
  Newspaper Advertising
  Newspaper Advertising
  Economic Co-operation Agreement
  Economic Co-operation Agreement
  Blocked Sterling Balances
  Blocked Sterling Balances
  EMIGRATION (CHILDREN)
  EMIGRATION (CHILDREN)
ALIENS
  Hungarian Socialist (Visit)
  Hungarian Socialist (Visit)
  Annual Returns
  Annual Returns
  POLICE FORCE (PAY)
  POLICE FORCE (PAY)
  NORTON APPROVED SCHOOL (APPOINTMENT)
  NORTON APPROVED SCHOOL (APPOINTMENT)
  PRISON, PORTLAND
  PRISON, PORTLAND
  UNITED STATES (VISITING FORCES) ACT
  UNITED STATES (VISITING FORCES) ACT
  COTTON INDUSTRY (CARD CLOTHING)
  COTTON INDUSTRY (CARD CLOTHING)
  PIG AND POULTRY APPLIANCES (TIMBER)
  PIG AND POULTRY APPLIANCES (TIMBER)
  HANDCUFFED UKRAINIANS
  HANDCUFFED UKRAINIANS
  SHIPPING SERVICES (POLICY)
  SHIPPING SERVICES (POLICY)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Onions
  Onions
  Flour (Bleaching Agent)
  Flour (Bleaching Agent)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ACT
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ACT
  EX-INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS
  EX-INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS
  DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
  DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
MALAYA
  Chinese (Repatriation)
  Chinese (Repatriation)
  Lintang (Incident)
  Lintang (Incident)
  Wage Rates (Value)
  Wage Rates (Value)
  CYPRUS (TRADE UNIONS)
  CYPRUS (TRADE UNIONS)
  BUSINESS PREMISES (RENTS)
  BUSINESS PREMISES (RENTS)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TOWER PIER
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, the Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make regarding the proposed extension of the Tower Pier.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, there has been during the past year an increased demand for accommodation at Tower Pier, partly due to the institution of what is called the Water Bus Service. The Port of London Authority have accordingly had to consider the best method of meeting this demand. One proposal was to extend the pier downstream, but I understand that the Port of London Authority are now making a detailed examination of the possibility of extending the pier upstream, thus avoiding any possible interference with the amenity of the Tower of London and with the children's beach. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that further detailed discussion here now would be premature.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his fairly satisfactory answer, but may I ask whether, in the event of the original proposal being brought up again—that is to say, to extend the pier downstream—this House will be afforded an opportunity of debating the Motion which now stands in my name on the Order Paper?
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of his earlier answer? Is the noble Lord aware—I speak as a member of the Port of London Authority—that the Port of London Authority never contemplated altering the Tower Pier in such a way as to obscure the frontage of the Tower?
  108
  The pier is merely a floating platform, a few feet above the surface of the water; it has no superstructure, and it rises and falls with the tide. The Port of London Authority have no selfish interest in the matter. After all, any extension carried out will be entirely for the benefit of the public and will involve the Authority in great expense.
  LORD MORRISON: The question as to whether or not the carrying out of the original proposal would interfere with the amenities of the Tower is really a matter of opinion. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, and the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who put his Motion on the Paper, is entitled to claim that, in his opinion, the extension would interfere with the amenities of the Tower. Fortunately, it does not fall upon me at the moment to decide which view is right. In reply to the noble Lord's question, I can assure him that no decision affecting the foreshore adjoining the Tower will be taken without first affording an opportunity for debate, should he so desire.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I am obliged to the noble Lord.

COAST PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
4.8 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 Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Coast protection authorities
1.—(1) The council of each maritime county borough or county district shall, subject to the provisions of any order under the next following section, be the coast protection authority for the county borough or county district, as the case may be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to subsection (1):
"but excluding any area in which a drainage authority or river board is maintaining works for the protection of low-lying lands."
The noble Viscount said: A number of Amendments appear on the Marshalled List under my name, but although there is a great deal of wording, the purpose

109
of the Amendments is simple: it is to protect the interests and the work of the catchment boards. I speak with some feeling on this matter, because I live by a river, and to us a catchment board is an extremely important authority. Other public authorities are remote, and appear to mankind only in the shape of demand notes. A catchment board is there alongside you, and when there is a very high tide or strong wind you feel how urgent is its work. Catchment boards are in a much higher national category than boards to protect articles of historic interest, because they are directly concerned with the agricultural products of the country.
If I give illustrations, they will be drawn from an area which I know very well—East Essex. No doubt they can be supported by noble Lords from other areas, but it is better to speak of that which one knows. In moving this Amendment, I can say at once that, so far as Essex is concerned, we should be quite as well off, and perhaps better off, if this Bill had never been introduced. We have an excellent rivers catchment board, and what is called the coast of the part of Essex I know, the Dengie Peninsula, is quite indistinguishable from the rest of the country. This complete flatness has a beauty exceeding anything which Switzerland can produce—at least, that is my opinion. If you step along the wall going round the Dengie Peninsula—reminding one by its very name of the incursions of the Danes—you come to 55‣ East, but you cannot see anything on the wall at all. It is the same wall which goes right round and becomes the coast (which is under the protection of the new authority) and returns along the Crouch River as an ordinary river wall. We have a most ancient consecrated church on that wall, the Church of St. Peter on the Wall, and Saint Cedd—who was a good British Saint, and who founded that church—would have been badly caught out by Clause 17 of this Bill, because he would have required a licence before he could erect his structure. It is still used as a consecrated building.
So far as engineering work on the coast is concerned, it is possible that one half of one of the synthetic slabs that are made may lie in the river area, and the other half on the forbidden side of
110
55′ East. It becomes coast protection, and comes under the authority of somebody else. I say that, so far as we are concerned, we should not mind if the whole afternoon was saved by the Minister withdrawing the Bill—but that, I presume, is not likely. It is obvious that there is a great deal to be said for having an allover scheme to deal with coast protection, but my complaint is merely that coast protection must not be put too high. It must be remembered that land drainage is very important. For example in this peninsula there are 13,000 acres of arable and pasture land which are protected by this board. We draw attention, therefore, to the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister when he promised this Bill, which was that the work of these catchment boards should not be hampered or interfered with. This Amendment excludes altogether from the authority of the new boards areas in which the catchment boards are working. If we fail in this Amendment—it is a radical Amendment I admit, and I should not be prepared to press it too far, because the general interest of the Bill must be considered—we shall move other Amendments to try to safeguard the work of the catchment boards.
All these different Amendments, broadly speaking, involve three points. One is that we (and by that I mean the catchment boards) want to be left in peace to continue our work. If that cannot be so unreservedly, then we wish to be quite sure that we shall he adequately represented on the joint boards on which we sit with the local authorities. The second point is that if work is being done, we require direct and certain notification. That is such a small point that I am almost ashamed to mention it, but it will arise in one of the Amendments. The third point is that we object to other authorities having the power to remove the shingle in front of our works, because we think it may do damage; and we require to be consulted on the point. A fourth point is that if the coast is developed and if it is necessary to seek permission for coast development by the erection, for example, of a bathing camp, or whatever it might be, these boards would like to be consulted, just as much as the coast protection authority, in case any such works should interfere with the efficacy of their work. I repeat that the whole purpose of their work is

111
to produce food, and everyone agrees that there is no task that is more important in this country to-day. What I have said covers the whole field of these Amendments, and I am content now to move the first. If I speak again, as I understand one may on Committee stage, it will only be in answer to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may raise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I will not at the outset attempt to reply to some of the detailed points made by my noble friend, because they have no reference to this particular clause or to this particular Amendment. Later on in the debate, when the Amendments are moved, we shall be called upon to reply to them. The first clause in this Bill provides that henceforth authorities for coast protection shall be urban district councils, rural district councils and county boroughs which are situated on the coast. It is quite true that at the present time in certain areas near to the river mouth drainage authorities have been responsible for the protection of the coasts, in order that water may flow more easily to the sea or to drain low-lying land. It is not the purpose of the Bill, as I shall show before I sit down, that the work of the river boards or the drainage authorities shall be interrupted at all. If the Amendment which has just been moved were to be carried, this Bill would be torpedoed, because much of the coast line would cease to be dealt with within the corners of the Bill.
From time to time it may be necessary to operate under Clause 2, which provides that where it is better to bring two or three authorities together, a joint board shall he established. That joint board would include a river board or a drainage authority; and it would then become responsible not merely for the coast which is not now touched, but for the coast which is at present receiving attention from the river board or the drainage authority. But the Amendment proposes not merely that the responsibility for the areas of river boards shall be cut away from the local authorities acting separately, but that they shall not even come within the authority of a joint
112
board itself. Notwithstanding that fact, the drainage authorities want adequate representation on the joint boards.
The Government believe that there may be danger of trouble between the different authorities if they act separately—if there is a frontier between the authorities. We think that if there are difficulties they can be settled by discussion, by joint decision and by co-operation. Therefore, in those cases we favour the board. I should just like to quote from Clause 42, paragraph (c), which gives protection to the river boards and the drainage authorities in the work that they are now doing. It reads as follows:
"Nothing in this Act or in any order made thereunder shall—
(c) authorise or require any person—

(i) to carry out any work of alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal on any works constructed or maintainable by a river board or drainage authority, or

(ii) to carry out any work on land on which the sowing or planting of vegetation is carried out or vegetation is maintained by a river board or drainage authority,

unless the board or authority consents or the work is to be done by, or under a scheme prepared by, a coast protection board on which the river board or drainage authority is represented;"
The Government would ask your Lordships to support them in the clause as it now stands, sure of their intention that the interests of the river boards will be protected.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I shall not press the Amendment, but the noble Lord has attempted to answer the Amendment by referring to another clause—Clause 2. If I am defeated, as of course I shall be, in this Amendment, then we must see what can be done with Clause 2. When we come to that clause, on which also I have an Amendment, I shall then presume to comment on the precautions which the noble Lord has said he has taken. But this Amendment is excluded by the existence of Clause 2. If the Amendment had been carried, then all the subsequent Amendments I have tabled would have fallen. At any rate, the principle is not excluded by the Government for the moment, and the matter must rest there. But when we come to what the noble Lord has offered as reasons, I shall

113
make what observations I can as to the imperfections of his argument.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Are not the main areas in which these river boards work excluded under the terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Bill? Here we get a number of geographical boundaries which leave the coast protection board to deal with the seaward side and those parts which are up-river are excluded from the operation of the coast protection board. I have great sympathy with the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment. We all listened with interest to the way in which he described this peninsula—which I understood from his description was called "Dingy."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No, it was "Dengie," after the Danes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was speaking more from the description the noble Viscount gave than from its historical name. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in the main, these river boards are working above the boundaries set out in the Fourth Schedule.
LORD SHEPHERD: The answer, of course, is in the affirmative, but there have been occasions when the drainage authorities have undertaken work in some areas where the sea has endangered the coast.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Constitution of coast protection boards
(2) A coast protection board shall consist of representatives of the council of every maritime county borough or county district any part of which is within the area for which the board is constituted, and, if the order so provides, of representatives of such one or more as may be specified in the order of the following bodies and persons, that is to say—

(a) the council of any county any part of which is within the area;

(b) any sea defence commissioners, river board, drainage authority, harbour authority, fishery board, local fisheries committee, conservancy authority or navigation authority having any powers or duties in relation to any part of the area;

(5) An order made under this section may
(e) contain any incidental or consequential provisions which appear to the Minister, or the Ministers concerned, to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, including, without prejudice to the
114
generality of this paragraph, provisions applying to the board any enactment which applies to a coast protection authority, not being a coast protection board, by reason that it is a local authority as defined for the purposes of that enactment.
(10) This section shall not apply to Scotland.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The council of any maritime county may apply to the Minister for an order for the constitution of a coast protection board for any area situated wholly or partly in that county, and the Minister thereupon shall, after consulting the council of every county, county borough and county district any part of which is within that area, make such order, if any, as he deems expedient."
The noble Viscount said: This is the first of a series of Amendments I am moving on behalf of the County Councils Association. In passing, I suggest, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that the county council are no more remote or disembodied than the catchment board.
Your Lordships may not think that this particular Amendment amounts to very much. All it does is to give the county council power to make representations. It is true that they can do that under the Bill as it stands, but nevertheless, I submit that there is a case for giving to the county councils rather special authority in this matter of coast protection. The question really is: What happens when this Bill is passed? Presumably, the Government expect the initiative to be taken by some local authority. I say that is presumably so because, although the Bill starts off by saying that all maritime county boroughs and county districts become coast protection authorities, it goes on, as so many Bills do now, to produce so many qualifications and provisos to save so much power to the Minister that this responsibility is not perhaps very clear. I still presume that the Government do not intend to do anything unless they are asked to do something by a local authority. If this initiative has to be taken by the new coast protection authority as defined in the Bill, we must face up to the fact that these new authorities are to be of all sorts, shapes and sizes. They vary enormously in regard to financial resources. On the one hand, we hind that in a great county

115
borough like Liverpool the penny rate produces £26,000. On the other hand, there are quite a number of rural and urban districts whose penny rate produces under £100; and I see that one produces only £15 a year.
I understand that the total number of maritime county boroughs and county district councils amounts 'to something like 300. I am afraid I do not know how many of them have coast erosion problems but, however many there may be, I think it most unlikely that these problems would exactly coincide with the boundaries of the district councils. For these reasons, it seems to the County Councils Association, rightly or wrongly, that in a number of cases, particularly in an instance where the coast is divided up between a number of small authorities, the proper solution will be a coast protection board. The approach to the problem ought to be on somewhat wider lines than can be undertaken by a small district council. We suggest that the most suitable authority to take the initiative in this matter is a county council. I say that for several reasons. First, they are the planning authorities, and I know from my own experience how difficult it is to separate planning problems from coast erosion problems in certain coastal areas. Secondly, the county councils are already represented on catchment boards and river boards, and are probably substantial contributors to those boards. Thirdly, and not least, it is quite likely that if coast protection boards are set up the county councils will be substantial contributors to those new boards. For those reasons, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It simply gives a lead and invites the county council to take some initiative in approaching the Ministry in appropriate cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I trust that he will allow me, in doing so, to say how surprised I was at the welcome, tepid though it was, that was given to the Second Reading of this Bill, because I come from a maritime county which is vastly concerned with coast protection. I have even had the
116
doubtful honour to be chairman of a catchment board which differed somewhat from that to which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, referred in that, excellent board though it was, it had one handicap—namely, it had a large number of miles of coastal walls and not one penny to maintain them. Therefore, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we do not regard this Bill with any enthusiasm. Nevertheless, your Lordships have given it a Second Reading and it is the duty of this House to make it as workable and as good a Bill as possible. When I had read this Bill some three or four times in my endeavour to grasp its intricacies, I came to one conclusion: that it seems extremely probable that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be altogether a dead measure. As I like to think that great minds think alike, I was glad to see that the same conclusion had forced itself upon the attention of the noble Lord who moved the Bill. Lord Shepherd, because he said, "I would point out that the boards, if they are formed at all. …" If the boards are not going to be formed at all, surely your Lordships, in company with a great many other people, must have been wasting a considerable amount of time.
I want to avoid that. I want to get the best out of the Bill that it is possible to get. As the Bill now stands, as my noble friend has pointed out, the onus of starting one of these boards rests upon the Ministry—I take it that it is in fact the Ministry—and even a Minister occasionally needs prodding into life. Who is to do the prodding in this case? I am not quite sure. Presumably the Ministry will go to the rural district council or the urban district council, but will they be so very keen on taking the initiative, thereby causing themselves some considerable expense? The Ministry may look to the river boards—indeed, I think they are more likely to be the people to initiate this than anyone else. They may look to the parish councils or to individuals; but individuals are extremely unlikely to urge that one of these boards be set up, in order that they may pay extremely heavy charges.
Surely, if there is one authority which would combine all these people suitably, that would be the proper body to ask the Ministry to act in the formation of a river board. A county council is repre-

117
sented on nearly all these bodies; it certainly has representatives on urban district councils and rural district councils; and it almost certainly has representatives on the catchment board or river board. It is, therefore, in close touch with neighbouring authorities, and I submit that it would facilitate the passage of this Bill, and make it more smooth in working and ready for the general benefit of the intentions which lie behind it, if this Amendment were accepted and the county council were to become the main body from which all applications came.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I do not think there is any difference in principle between the noble Lord opposite and the Government on the subject of this Amendment. The noble Viscount's Amendment does not, in fact, give county councils any power they do not at present possess or which they will not be able to exercise under the terms of the Bill as it stands. We appreciate as keenly as do he and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, the importance of county councils in making this scheme work, and we see the need for county councils to take the initiative on occasions when they feel that a scheme should be put into operation to protect the coast in their area. Under subsection (1) of Clause 2, there is nothing whatever to prevent county councils from taking the initiative—which I think is what the noble Viscount wants—in asking the Ministry of Health to set up a joint board.
There may be many occasions when a smaller local authority has not taken the initiative, and when the matter might be neglected for a long period of time unless a larger authority were to make the first approach to the Ministry of Health. I can give the noble Viscount this assurance, that if the Minister is approached in this way by a county council, he will give earnest consideration to its representations; and he will do so, whether the council are asking for the board for the area included in the county, or for a larger area taking in a strip of the coast extending into one or more neighbouring counties. I hope, in view of the fact that the Bill as it stands will give the county councils exactly the same functions as he desires, he will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As I said, the legal effect of my Amendment is very small, and I am grateful for the observations of the noble Earl. Sometimes smaller authorities rather resent action by county councils when there is nothing in an Act specifically to invite that action, but think these fears will be allayed and the assurance given by my noble friend will afford some authority to the county councils to take the initiative. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEhad given Notice of three Amendments in subsection (2), the first of which was to omit "for which the board is constituted" and to insert "of the board." The noble Viscount said: As I mentioned when I moved the Amendment to Clause 1 which was withdrawn, the catchment boards feel that if they cannot have their areas excluded from the operation of the new coast protection authorities, at any rate their position should be assured. I would repeat what I said about the importance of their work, and I think members on all sides will agree that it is extremely important work. These catchment boards are growing food, and the Minister concerned is the Minister of Agriculture. What is their fate under Clause 2? First of all, an order is made. If the coast protection authority does not include these boards, then they have no effect in the matter at all. But supposing a joint board (that is the argument which was advanced by my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, as the answer) is formed. By whom is it formed? Is it formed by the Minister of Agriculture? Is it formed by the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with the catchment board, who are concerned to see that this joint board can do the work and get the land clear for the job? Not at all. The person who is to decide whether these large agricultural organisations are to participate in machinery to help them to carry out that work is the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health has a great many interests, and a very important task, but it is a surprise to me, first, that it is on his initiative alone that these joint boards are to be set up, and secondly, that the catchment boards will

119
have no claim at all to be on a joint board unless an order is made by the Minister of Health. Suppose he makes an order for the establishment of a joint board. Even so, under what category of persons who are to be the constituents of such a board do we find the catchment boards? They come under subsection (2), paragraph (b), which specifies
"sea defence commissioners, river board, drainage authority, harbour authority, fishery board"—
all sorts of authorities are included, but there is not a word in the Bill which says that catchment boards shall be represented on such a joint board if it is set up by the Ministry of Health. If the case I have stated is the true one, I am quite sure there is not a member of this Committee who will consider that that is a position which can reasonably be maintained. Therefore I submit with some confidence my Amendments to page 2, lines 13, 14, and 19, which hang together, and the purpose of which is to ensure that if a joint board is created, the catchment boards shall have a right to participate for certain, and not depend upon the whim of a Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("area") to ("and") in line 14, and insert ("of the board").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As my next two Amendments are designed to have much the same effect as those just moved by the noble Viscount, I, too, would like to say a word. Under the Bill as drafted, these river boards (and very important bodies they are) can come in only if the Minister sees fit to include them by order. They have at present no right to be on the board. They have no right to be consulted as to what the coast protection board does. These river boards or catchment boards must, in some way, be given a better position than the Bill gives them at the moment. I do not know when or how this can be done. I understand that the idea is to levy a charge on everybody who is brought in under this clause, so it is probably not the appropriate place for their inclusion. But in any case where areas are likely to be contiguous, and conflict is likely to take place, I think it is better to have representation of these
120
people on the coast protection board itself, whether or not they have to pay part of the charges of that board. That is much better than having two bodies who are at arms length and who have to consult with one another; or, even worse, as in the Bill as at present drafted, where there is no necessity for the new coast protection boards to consult the river boards at all. Therefore, I hope that some means will be found of bringing these two bodies closer together, because in a large number of areas they are doing very similar work alongside each other, and the work ought to be done jointly rather than under different plans. For that reason I support the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think there is some misunderstanding as to the position of the coast protection authorities and the coast protection boards. In a great many cases it may not be necessary to establish a board at all. The work to be done will be of a minor character and will be within the compass of performance either of the rural district council, the urban district council or the county borough. There are certain parts of the country, however, where greater difficulties exist, and where there is work of an urgent character to be done. In those cases it must be evident that, from the beginning, a coast protection board will need to be formed. The Bill provides in such a case for the Ministers concerned, not "the Minister" I would ask my noble friend to note—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt for a moment? Perhaps there is a misprint in my copy of the Bill, but subsection (1) says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may … make an order."
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, but where authorities like this are concerned—you will find this set out at a later stage in the Bill—the appointment of the Board is in the hands of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and probably, on occasion, the Minister of Transport.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will my noble friend forgive me? My point was that it is in the hands of the Minister of Health alone to decide whether such a board is to be created. If he decides that it is to be created, he consults his colleagues as to how best to do it. But it is

121
in his power to prevent its creation. That is my understanding of the position. I hope that I am not misrepresenting it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I refer the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the First Schedule? He will find it states there that:
"Before making an order the Minister shall prepare a draft order. …"
What we are dealing with here is the position if the order is prevented. When we refer to the First Schedule, we do not find one, two or three Ministers but just "the Minister."
LORD SHEPHERD: I am acting on instructions in this matter. As your Lordships understand, I am a Lord in Waiting with no particular responsibility to a Department. Therefore, I am bound to put before your Lordships the case as it is presented by the Ministry concerned. This is what the Ministry say. If a drainage authority concerned ask for representation on a board, the decision whether or not they shall be on the board will, of course, be determined jointly by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Government would be prepared to include an Amendment to the First Schedule to make this clear.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We were not aware of that, of course. We have only the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think perhaps I ought not to have given way. As I was saying, the Government would be prepared to include an Amendment to the First Schedule to make this clear. So any fears that the Minister of Health may act in the manner of a Tsar may be dissipated. In those cases where the urgency is near, and where on the face of it the call for a board is obvious, an early decision would be taken to establish a board. But there may well be cases where boards will not be called into operation until it is clear that some particular work requires to be done. If a board is constituted to carry through a particular function, the bodies to be represented on the board will be determined in accordance with the position. It would not, for instance, be good policy to include on the board any body which was not particularly interested in the work to be done. It would be important to have represented bodies which were
122
keenly interested in the work. Such bodies should, of course, be given adequate representation. I hope that after the explanation which I have given, my noble friend Lord Stansgate will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment and allow the clause to go through as it now stands—that is to say, leaving the appointments to the board in an elastic position and not binding the Government down to a rigid application of a principle of representation all through.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very grateful to my noble friend, but I would point out that we are not legislating on something which he has in his hand as a Lord in Waiting; we have to go on the Papers which are printed and issued. I would like to ask him this: Am I right in supposing that it does not lie with the Minister of Health alone to decide whether such a board shall be constituted? If it appears that such a board is necessary, other Ministers—such as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is specially concerned with the catchment boards, will presumably have a say. I would also like to direct his attention to the definition contained in page 40 at line 3, where it says that
"'Minister' means the Minister of Health;"
With all respect to the Minister of Health, I feel, speaking from the point of view of the catchment boards, that there is a great deal too much of the Minister of Health in this Bill and too little of the Minister of Agriculture, who is of course very much concerned with the work of the boards. Having said that, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment in order to give my noble friend time, between now and the Report stage, to bring something forward to meet this point.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would point out that until the Minister has consulted his colleagues, the board will not be set up.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is that in the Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not understand. I am in some state of embarrassment about this. I believe that I was a member of the Cabinet that agreed to this Bill. Therefore I may very well have been responsible for this iniquity.

123
That only goes to show how little real consultation there is in a Cabinet! Anyone who has been in a Cabinet knows that the wretched fellow who brought in a point of this kind would have his head bitten off in two minutes by more important members of the Cabinet. I should be glad if the noble Lord would assure me that he will put down something to make sure that if the Minister of Agriculture feels that a catchment board, for example, should be represented, steps will be taken to see that that is done. If I am given such an assurance I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend is a very much older Parliamentarian than myself. He has also had the good fortune of being the head of a Ministry, and because of that he must know something about the practice of administering the affairs of the country. But the answer to him is this: that it would not be usual to put a matter of this kind within the Bill—that is, to provide for consultation between Ministers. But it is the practice that such consultation should take place, and my noble friend can rest assured, after what I have said in this debate, that that practice will be followed and adequate regard will be paid to the interests of the river boards and the drainage authorities.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have so often heard Ministers say that the House can take their assurances that "this will be done," or "that will be done." I hope that the Labour Government will last for ever, but it may not do so. Other Ministers may hold office, and any assurances such as those given to us to-day by the noble Lord—gratifying as they are to us now—may well have not the least value then. It should be possible, I suggest, to include some such provision as:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister, after consultation with the Ministers concerned, may … make an order."
It is quite easy, to put it in the Bill. I am not asking the noble Lord to do it flow, but I beg him to give us some little glimmer of hope that when we come to Report stage something of this kind may be inserted, in order to assure the future of catchment boards and their work.
LORD SHEPHERD: All I can say is that I will see that consideration is given to the point, but I cannot give a guarantee that what the noble Viscount is asking for will be included.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have learned the form of this House, which is to be grateful for very small mercies. I have heard Ministers thanked for doing nothing at all. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will build as much as I can on a somewhat insecure foundation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: As my Amendments also concern this point, may I say that I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has been most considerate, and I think his representations ought to be considered. If it has been inserted at Clause 2 (4), it can equally be inserted a little higher up in the clause without in any way defeating the object of the Bill. This would give some assurance to catchment boards that their representations might be attended to, because they would make them through the Ministry of Agriculture and not through the Ministry of Health. I gather that on the noble Lord's assurance that this matter will be looked into, the noble Viscount will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to move my next two Amendments.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a very simple drafting Amendment. Its purpose is merely to indicate that river boards are drainage authorities. The Amendment will recur during the Committee stage, and if your Lordships approve the present Amendment, in future I will do no more than formally move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.53 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (2):
"(f) Any county agricultural executive committee for any county any part of which is in the area."
The noble Lord said: Here your Lordships will see that I am attempting to

125
move that one of the bodies that may be represented on this joint board will be "any county agricultural executive committee for any county any part of which is in the area" of the coast protection board. It seems to me important that the bodies which look after the interests of agriculture should be consulted regarding what these protection boards are going to do. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has already spoken about the value of food production, and the county agricultural executive committees are the people mostly concerned. They should certainly be consulted and the best way, perhaps, will be to put them on the board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CRANWORTH: The people I represent attach great importance to this Amendment. I would like to point out that questions of agriculture and food production will inevitably arise, apart from which the question of betterment is one calling for expert agricultural knowledge. It might well be that this board would not contain a single person with any agricultural knowledge whatever or capable in any way of estimating the betterment that had occurred from the carrying out of these works.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should also like to say a word in support of the Amendment. The provision of food is a matter of great importance and one with which I think most of your Lordships are familiar. I understand that something like 53 per cent. of the coast line of Britain is on farm land. Apart from what has already been said, that fact shows that there is a case for the inclusion of agricultural representatives on this authority.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We share the desire expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment that the county agricultural executive committees should be consulted in the case of any scheme involving agricultural interests. I think the only point on which we differ is the question of the best way of bringing the agricultural executive committees into these discussions. We do not think that the proper way to bring them in is by putting them on the board. They have not such a direct interest in coast protection as the local authorities,
126
river boards and other bodies already specified in Clause 2 (2), and I do not want to clutter up these committees, which will be rather large in any case, with people who have only a small interest in their work. I would like to suggest an alternative way of getting the views of agricultural executive committees, and this suggestion is an assurance that, if it is acceptable to noble Lords opposite, something on these lines will be done. What I am suggesting is that the advice of the county agricultural executive committees will always be asked if agricultural interests are involved in any scheme. The way we would like to see that this is brought to the notice of those concerned is for this point to be included in the circular which will be set out on the administration of the Bill when it is passed into law. We think this is the best way of bringing agricultural interests into the scheme wherever they are affected. Of course, there are a good many cases where they do not come in at all. I submit this is a possibly more practical and effective way of doing what the noble Lord opposite wants.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his assurance. I think that if in this circular, which will really he the instructions to the coast protection boards, it is pointed out that where agricultural interests are concerned they are to consult the agricultural executive committees, it will meet my point. That ensures that their views will be heard and will receive attention by these boards. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must confess that I regret the last speech, because it does not seem to me that the noble Earl's suggestion will meet the point. I can suggest several instances, but will take the case of farmers in a large agricultural area. If there is no one there with any agricultural knowledge, who is to take the initiative of putting charges on the farmers and owners concerned?—because both will be concerned. It may involve hundreds and hundreds of acres, and most expert knowledge will be required. It is all very well to say that these people can be called in afterwards, but someone has to have the initiative. Who is to decide whether these questions are of sufficient importance? I regret that the Amendment is not to be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (5) (e), after the second "provisions" to insert:
"as to the manner in which the expenses of a constituent authority under the last foregoing paragraph are to be defrayed and provisions."
The noble Lord said: This is largely a drafting Amendment. The order may need to deal with the manner in which the expenses of a constituent authority are to be defrayed—for example, as to whether the expenses of a county council should be general or special. It is felt on further consideration to be of sufficient importance to justify specific mention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, after ("provisions") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) The accounts of a coast protection board shall be subject to audit by a district auditor appointed by the Minister, and copies of the audited accounts shall be supplied by the coast protection board to the constituent authorities respectively on completion of the audit."
The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple point. We feel that as the accounts of a county council have to be submitted to district audit, and as the accounts of a district council have to be submitted to a district audit, the expenses of one of these coast protection authorities should be treated in the same way. After all, a considerable amount of the ratepayers' money is involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount opposite for this Amendment, and I hope that the reception of the Amendment by the Government will show that we do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. We agree with him that the accounts of these boards should be audited, and that copies should be sent to those authorities represented on the board. However, we are not altogether happy about the wording. I would ask the noble Lord to be good enough to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that I will consult with
128
the draftsman and produce another form of words at the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have no objection to that. I may perhaps remind the noble Earl that this subsection is similar to a provision which was included in the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1947, without any objection. But if there are these somewhat mysterious complications, I am only too willing to give way at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is quite a short Amendment. Although the River Tweed is in Scotland, the fisheries area of the Commissioners appointed under the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, extends into England. Accordingly, just as under the paragraph to be amended the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries acts jointly with the Minister of Health in relation to an English fishery board, so provision is made by this Amendment for the Secretary of State to act jointly with the Minister of Health for the protection of the Tweed Commissioners. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("board") insert ("(other than the Tweed Commissioners)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I recognise that this Amendment is necessary, partly to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland into this clause. This points more clearly to the anomaly that Scotland as a whole is left out of this clause, and more will be said about this on another Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: The next Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("(b) in relation to the Tweed Commissioners means the Minister and the Secretary of State;").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to omit subsection (10). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I did not take any exception to the last two Amendments because, not having, seen them when I put down my Amendment, I assume that any consequential Amendments that follow the Amendment I move will naturally be made at a later stage. I look on this as a very serious Amendment, and unless the noble Lord who replies has some very strong reasons for rejecting it—which I cannot for the life of me imagine—I hope your Lordships will support me in putting it in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill commences:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may, where it appears to him expedient for the protection of land in any area, make an order providing for the constitution of a board …"
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has assured your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government to set up boards only where there is some special work to be done in coast protection which affects one or more areas. Clause 2 (10) says:
"This section shall not apply to Scotland."
If this power is, or may be, necessary for the protection of the sacred land of England—and it is just as sacred to me as it is to its inhabitants—why should not that power be put into the hands of the Minister for the protection of Scotland? It may not be necessary to use these powers but the clause is purely permissive. Whether they are used is entirely in the hands of the Minister. I am free from the embarrassment that afflicted the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because in Scotland, as your Lordships know, there is only one Minister—namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no difficulty there. He has it entirely in his own hands.
I would like to reinforce this argument with another. I would ask your Lordships to recall the map of Scotland and to consider how it differs from the map of England. In the first place, it is not sheltered from the Atlantic by Ireland: it is unprotected on the West coast. If your Lordships look at the map, you will find that from the Outer Hebrides there is one vast curve which goes round the land of the Outer Hebrides, off the North-West corner of
130
Scotland and then along the North coast. I submit that the forces which form one part of that curve form the whole of it. Behind that protecting barrier lie the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Sutherland. These powers which are to be in the hands of the Government may, in special circumstances which may arise—if your Lordships draw the same conclusion from the map as I do—affect all or some of those counties. I submit that in such circumstances the Secretary of State should have the power to form a board.
If your Lordships look at the map, and go round to the other side of Scotland, you will find one great inlet, bay or gulf—namely, the Moray Firth. I submit that there may arise in the Moray Firth questions of coast erosion which affect the whole of that area. We cannot tell, but if that should happen it would concern the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Cromarty, Sutherland and Caithness. There is a Clear case where, should something happen, it might be necessary to form a board. As I say, this clause is permissive, but I feel that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have the same powers for use in an emergency as his colleague in England.
Finally, in support of this, I will draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (5), which contemplates the arising of emergencies. It is the subsection where objections to action can be heard and it says:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent a coast protection authority from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land in their area."
I will not answer for the grammar of that clause, because I think the wording might have been a little different to make it clearer But it shows that His Majesty's Government do contemplate the arising of some urgent case where new work has to be constructed in a hurry to prevent loss of land. If that is so, it may well affect more than one area, and the Secretary of State ought to have the necessary powers to deal with the emergency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (10).—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before the noble Lord replies, I would like to associate myself with the Amendment moved by my noble friend—and for this reason. On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the view that we might have been better served by a separate Bill for Scotland. Following that, the Secretary of State courteously wrote to me explaining that in principle the Bill was the same for both countries, and that the machinery differed only in a small way. The main difference in machinery is from the fact that Scotland is omitted from the provision of making boards. I have thought it over a good deal, and I cannot see that the omission is justified, because the clause is permissive. The Secretary of State is not enjoined to make these boards; he may make them. If, as I imagine, the noble Lord says the answer is geographical, and that Scottish problems are probably smaller, I would suggest that that has yet to be seen, and the Secretary of State should be armed with those powers. I hope that at a later stage the noble Lord will accept this or some similar Amendment, which will put the Secretary of State in precisely the same position as his English counterpart.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I should like to support this Amendment, from the point of view that there are areas in Scotland, which are larger than those that have been referred to, where there is an obvious combination. I refer to the inlets, the big firths, the Firth of Clyde, the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth. In those areas there are counties on both sides intimately associated with this kind of problem. In two of them at least, the Firth of Clyde and the Firth of Forth, there are at present harbour authorities or conservancy authorities who are engaged on problems of the same kind. It seems to be entirely wrong that, where there is a combination of authorities, in a case of this kind Scotland should not be permitted the same procedure as that permitted to England. If it is good for England, certainly Scotland should have the same permissive power, through its Secretary of State, to have these boards, in order that they may operate in a combined way, instead of having each county operating in a committee under the next clause. I therefore support this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: We in Scotland often object to Scotland being included in a Bill for England because the conditions are not the same. But here the conditions are exactly the same and, therefore, I cannot see why Scotland should not have the same rights as England. Further, it is a most extraordinary thing that, in certain clauses which follow, provisions applying to Scotland are included. Why is it said that Clause 2 shall not apply to Scotland, if other clauses do? I cannot see any clause which is equivalent to Clause 2 applying to Scotland. I hope the noble Lord who replies will give very sympathetic consideration to this Amendment. It is essential that we in Scotland, who have a much more rugged coast, should have coast protection where it is possible. I do not see why, where the circumstances are the same, Scotland should not have the same advantages as England.
LORD MORRISON: Ever since I have, unhappily, been made responsible for defending from this side of the House the Government's views on Scotland, I have always been met with the argument—to which, frankly, I knew no satisfactory reply—that it was totally unfair to treat Scotland the same as England. It was said that they were two separate and distinct countries, with separate and distinct histories; and, in particular, that the history of Scotland went back into the dim and distant past, long before the people in England knew what civilisation was. Therefore, to say to them of an English Act, "This shall apply to Scotland," was an insult to Scotland. Now, to my surprise, almost all the speakers have taken exactly the opposite line to-day; and it has somewhat disconcerted me. They have now reversed the usual dictum and they say: "Treat Scotland the same as England."
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, started by saying that he regarded this as a very important Amendment. I have no doubt he sincerely does so regard it, but he will forgive my saying that in those circumstances it is a pity that it did not appear on the Paper rather earlier. I think it was only the day before yesterday that it first appeared. Therefore, there has not been a great deal of time to give it the attention which it might deserve.

133
In England, coast protection may cover long stretches of the coast line, and, while the noble Lord himself dealt with the extraordinary position of the Western coast of Scotland, with its multitude of islands and its rugged coast line, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, dealt with the question of the Forth and the Tay. That seemed to be not an argument for including Scotland in this clause, but rather an argument as to why any joint action necessary on the part of the adjacent coast protection authorities (the county councils or town councils, who are much more suitable, so far as Scotland is concerned) can more suitably and adequately be effected by the setting up of a joint committee, as provided for in the next clause of the Bill.
That is the only reason I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment—and I put that reason for his further examination, which I am certain he will give. In the meantime, I would add that, so far as the Scottish Department is concerned—I include myself in that, I hope—they have no information, apart from the Amendment which the noble Lord has so recently put on the paper, of any objection to the proposal in the Bill. During the discussions on the clauses of this Bill the Scottish Department met the County Councils Association of Scotland on two separate occasions when, I am informed, a very large number of points were raised. But this point was never mentioned. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise my difficulty when, after having attended two conferences at which no one mentioned this point, I suddenly find myself confronted with a request from the noble Lord, backed by other noble Lords whose words are of considerable importance, to concede something that does not appear to have been considered. If the noble Lord will be good enough to think over that point and withdraw his Amendment for the present, I will, provided that between now and the Report stage there is some further evidence of a considered and informed demand for this from Scotland, seek fresh advice from the Department which I represent.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask the noble Lord whether, being an Aberdonian, he is of opinion that Scotland should have a separate Bill?
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, knows the answer to that. Whatever my views may be, it is too late to discuss the matter now, in the middle of the Committee stage of a joint Bill. I admit the soft impeachment of the noble Marquess that I am an Aberdonian—though I have been so long away that it is only recently that Aberdeen realised that it is so.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: With regard to the negotiations with the County Councils. Association of Scotland, I was present at the conferences and I know it is true, up to a point, that this question was not raised; but the point as to whether or not there should be a Scottish Bill was raised by me. As I have received from the Secretary of State a letter similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has mentioned I have told that body that I presume we should not pursue that matter any further; but undoubtedly there is a feeling in Scotland that this permissive clause should be allowed.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord said that consultations have been held with local authorities, but I am not sure that these consultations included the port and harbour authorities and the navigation authorities responsible for the navigable rivers Clyde, Tay and Forth.
LORD MORRISON: I expressly said the County Councils Association of Scotland.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I think the matter needs further reflection, because these authorities may have an interest in this Amendment. The committees allowed for in the next clause can be formed only by the authorities under this Bill forming a committee and inviting others; whereas under Clause 2 it is the Secretary of State who takes the initiative, and it is possible that the harbour authorities may not be invited to join. There is a case for consideration, at any rate, of the value of this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have already suggested that Scotland needs this clause even more than England—not merely an English Bill with maimed rights. But when the noble Lord said that he had not had sufficient notice of this important Amendment, I am afraid he found a hole in my armour. I was convinced

135
that I had written to him in December, before Christmas, asking that this Amendment be put down; and my astonishment two days ago, when I found that I had not so written, was great. I asked for it to be put down at once, and that was done. It is my fault that the noble Lord did not receive sufficient notice, but my intentions were quite pure. In these circumstances, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment now, but I would ask whether I can be taken into consultation before the next stage is reached, because I have a great deal of work coming forward in Scotland and I should like to arrange to be here. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
General powers of coast protection authorities
4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, a coast protection authority shall have power to carry out such coast protection work, whether within or outside their area, as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area.
(2) A coast protection authority may enter into an agreement with any other person for the carrying out by that person or by the authority, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement, of any coast protection work which the authority have power to carry out under this Part of this Act.
(3) A coast protection authority may acquire, whether by way of purchase, lease or exchange, any land, whether within or outside there area, being land—

(a) required by them for the purpose of carrying out thereon any coast protection work which they have power to carry out under this Part of this Act, or

(b) for the protection of which they propose to carry out any such work as aforesaid, not being work of maintenance or repair.

(4) For the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power of a coast protection authority under this Part of this Act is to be exercised, the authority may defray or contribute to the cost of obtaining a report of a consulting engineer or surveyor as to any coast protection work or proposal to carry out any such work.
5.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that, except with the consent in writing of any drainage authority or river
136
board which is for the time being maintaining works for the protection of the coast, a coast protection authority (not being a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented) shall not carry out any coast protection work in the area in which such protective works are maintained."
The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 4 of this Bill coast protection authorities are authorised to carry out certain works. The catchment boards are concerned that no work should be carried out which is detrimental to their work. This is safeguarded, so far as the Government have thought of it, in Clause 42, paragraph (c), as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has pointed out. But the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has overlooked a technical point—the fact that something might be erected altogether outside the area of the board which would nevertheless affect the work of the board. For example, a groyne might be constructed outside the area of the board, or the joint board, on which the catchment board was represented, and it might be detrimental to the work of the catchment board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: Lest it be thought that I have offered a straight bat to all the proposals put forward by our noble friend, I think I had better say that later on there may be one or two cases where it will be possible for us to give way and to accept proposals. But I am afraid that in this particular case the Government cannot accept the Amendment. To begin with, the first line of the Amendment contains the words "consent in writing," so that if a coast protection authority desired to do any work and the river board or drainage authority proved stubborn, nothing could be done, because the consent of that board is necessary. We think, therefore, that in that particular case the effect of this Amendment would be far too strong.
The second point is that in Clause 42, to which I have already referred, we think there is ample protection for the interests of the river boards and the drainage authorities; and in Clause 5, subsection (3), paragraph (a), there appears a statement that where an objection is made by a river board or drainage authority to works to be carried out by a

137
coast protection authority, then the objection will be dealt with not by the Minister of Health alone but by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture jointly. I think, therefore, that my noble friend will see that the river boards and drainage authorities are fully protected, and that there is a joint ministerial decision to be taken in any objection that may be levied against the work. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will find it in his power to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am much obliged to my noble friend for what he has said, but I should like to correct his first impression. I would point out that he will be conferring no favour upon me or upon anybody else by accepting these Amendments. These matters were put forward in the public interest by boards who are doing an important job. Therefore, if we urge them upon him, he must be satisfied, as I am sure he is, that we are doing so in order to protect that work. What does it come to? The noble Lord has not said a word against the merits of this Amendment. This Amendment says: "If something is proposed to be done which is going to spoil the work of a catchment board, if that catchment board is not a, party to a joint board, then it must not be done." What is unreasonable about that? What is the good of saying: "There may be an inquiry and, if there is an inquiry, the Minister of Agriculture is to be put in to make the picture more agreeable"? That is not the gist of the matter at all.
However, since my noble friend has promised to consider these points, all I ask is that he will, between now and Report stage, leave these matters open and give careful consideration to them. After all, if our coast protection works are as adamant as his replies to-day, then our island is safe! If he will do that, I shall be quite prepared to trust to the merits of the arguments I have advanced and to his consideration of them to see that something is done. The noble Lord must remember that the whole gist of this Bill is to take the works of these catchment boards and put them under the direction of the appointed Minister—in this case the Minister of Health, who is made the Czar of this scheme. If my noble friend will remember that and give us permission to raise these points in a
138
more favourable atmosphere on the next occasion, then I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that the atmosphere to-day is not unfavourable. We are endeavouring to carry out our duty as we see it, and we have no complaint against my noble friend for doing likewise. But I think my noble friend must be fair in his description of the Bill. It is not true to say to us that, if a coast protection authority starts to do work, the river boards and drainage authorities are helpless. I have drawn his attention to the fact that under Clause 5, the river board or drainage authority may protest against a proposal to undertake work which in its opinion will be detrimental to its interests. I also pointed out to him that, if it does make that protest, it will not be settled merely by the Minister of Health, but by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture jointly. Therefore, I hope that, that being the case, and as I am prepared to think over the points that my noble friend has raised, he will not find it too difficult to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In the sunny atmosphere introduced by the Minister. I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment goes with an Amendment standing in my name after Clause 24. It is little more than a drafting point. What I have in mind is to make this subsection into a separate clause of its own and to add after the words "coast protection work" the words "or other function." The simple effect is to extend somewhat the power conferred on a coast protection authority of making agreements. The real object of these two Amendments is to save unnecessary expense and officials. May I give an example from the Sea Defence Commission, of which I happen to be chairman? We have an administrative staff of two—a clerk and a treasurer. If this Commission were to become a coast protection board under the Bill, I should like to have full liberty to make agreements with the constituent authorities, not only in regard to the actual coast protection work upon which we are engaged, but also in regard

139
to the various administrative problems that arise.
For example, if we made a works scheme under Clause 7, I should like to be guided very largely by the constituent authorities as to the land to be included and the charges to be made upon the land. I feel that it would be a great waste of money if we had to engage special surveyors and other officials to do this sort of work. Similarly, cases may arise where a district council would wish to avail itself of the services of a county council staff. Rightly or wrongly, I am advised that the wording of this subsection as it stands, confined as it is to the work of coast protection, might give insufficient latitude for what I have in mind. Your Lordships will remember that the accounts of district councils and county councils have to be audited by the district auditor, and, if there is any question of something not being allowed, those councils are advised that they have no power to undertake such work. The point is a simple one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may follow the example of the noble Lord opposite, I should like to save time and speak both to this Amendment and to his subsequent Amendment, using the same words in my reply. In the first place, I am advised that the small alteration in the wording which the noble Viscount wishes to secure by adding the words "or other function" does not, in fact, alter the effect of Clause 4 (2); therefore, it would not carry out what the noble Viscount has in mind. On the other hand, if what the noble Viscount has in mind has been rightly interpreted by me, what he wants can be achieved without any of the powers conferred by this Bill. For example, if a coast protection authority wants to arrange with a county council to borrow its staff for a specific purpose for which it has power to act, it can do so by ordinary arrangement, by paying the staff while it is engaged upon work on its behalf. Therefore there is no need to provide for this specifically in the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that, if I have understood the noble Viscount correctly, he will feel that the problem that he has raised is already covered.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It seems to be a case of conflicting legal advice—which is not unknown. But if the noble Earl can assure me that the simple proposition that I have in mind can be properly undertaken under the wording of the Bill as it now stands, I will certainly withdraw my Amendment, although I may perhaps be allowed to consult my own advisers and come back to this point at a later stage. I have in mind only the idea of saving unnecessary expense, wages and officials. If that point is already covered, then there is no need to insert it in the Bill. On that understanding, I will withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly look at this matter again in the light of what the noble Viscount has said this afternoon. We have not hitherto had the benefit of his own remarks upon this subject. I should like to refer them to my departmental advisers to see that I am quite right upon this particular point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), after "carrying out" to insert "or supervision." The noble Lord said: This is a simple, short Amendment. Under Clause 4 (2), as drafted,
"A coast protection authority may enter into an agreement with any other person for the carrying out by that person or by the authority.…"
of the work. Then we come to subsection (4), where we see that:
"For the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power of a coast protection authority under this Part of this Act is to be exercised, the authority may defray or contribute to the cost of obtaining a report of a consulting engineer."
It seems to me that here we may have a contrast, because in Clause 4 (2) we have the words:
"for the carrying out by that person"
of the work. I would like to be assured that the "carrying out" means that you may employ some person who may be an outside consulting engineer. Every coast protection authority may not want to have a high-powered consulting engineer, but may wish to have power to employ such a person for a particular scheme, and I would like the assurance that that will be included in the words "carrying out." If it is not included in those words, then I suggest that my wording—namely, "carrying out or supervision"—should

141
be put in. That is the short and simple point. I think everybody will agree that there may be cases, certainly in big coast protection works, where it is necessary to have a supervisory firm to look after the general planning of the work. I want to know whether the words in the Bill are wide enough to cover the employment of such persons, should they be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, after ("out") insert ("or supervision").
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. Clause 4, subsection (2), which gives a coast protection authority power to enter into an agreement with any other person to carry out coast protection work, also implies that such an agreement can be entered into in regard to the supervision of the work that is to be executed by the agency employed by the coast protection authority. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that his point is covered.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged. I only wanted to make quite certain, because there may be a number of cases where it will be necessary to employ such people. In view of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (3), after "purchase" to insert "feu." The noble Marquess said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I move this formal Amendment, the object of which is merely to include the word "feu" after the word "purchase" in regard to the acquisition of land in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("purchase") insert ("feu").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD MORRISON: I am particularly happy to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and I know he will suitably thank me for this great concession!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: The County Councils Association feel rather strongly on this point. They con-
142
sider that this subsection is at best unnecessary, and at the worst dangerous. The point is that in previous Acts local authorities have often been given powers of such a nature as may require the advice of consultants for their proper discharge. The Statute referring to water supply is a good example. But never before has it been suggested that the authorities require a specific provision to enable them to engage consultants for this purpose. They are, in fact, always bringing in consultants to advise them. The point is, that if the subsection remains in the Bill the legality of action taken or contemplated by authorities under other Acts will become questionable and may have serious results. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There may be some misunderstanding on the part of the County Councils Association about the object of this subsection. This subsection is not concerned with the cost of the employment of a consulting engineer to draw up a report in order to enable the coast protection authority to proceed with the work which it then executes. That is the ordinary case, which can be paralleled in the, work of many other authorities. This subsection covers the case where a report is asked for and drawn up, and then, in the light of the report, the authority decides to go no further. What is felt is that we must make certain that coast protection authorities are not deterred from investigating problems of this kind, where they feel it may be necessary to carry out works or to protect the coast, because they think that if they do not act on the report of their consultant they will not be able to recover the cost of the report. We want to make it quite clear here that, even if they do not execute works in the area covered by the report, they will be able to recover the cost of the report drawn up for them by the consulting engineer.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I seem continually to become involved in legal discussions which I am quite unqualified to maintain, but I must confess that I am rather surprised at the answer given by the noble Earl. The Bill starts by making every maritime county borough or county dis-

143
trict into a coast protection authority, and I would have thought that, as they are coast protection authorities (although they may well be inactive coast protection authorities), they should have the right to get in a consultant without running a risk of surcharge. It is not a question upon which I desire to divide against the noble Earl, but I should have thought there was a substantial point here. I have often been told that where authorities are given powers they are also given authority to spend money on those powers, and I find it very difficult to understand why they should have to have some special authority here. Perhaps this point can be looked into between now and Report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly examine the point again, but I think the noble Viscount will agree that this subsection does give the coast protection authority power to employ a consulting engineer to draw up a report, whether that report is acted upon or not; and that this power, standing as it does in terms in the Bill, makes the position absolutely clear, where otherwise it might give rise to doubt.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the point which my noble friend is making is that, as county councils always do this in any other case, to put it in here and give them specific power in this Bill, will cast a doubt as to whether they have a power in the normal functions which they have always exercised. There must, in the normal functions of a county council, be a number of cases where they call in a consulting engineer or surveyor and do not follow up on the works. I think it would be wise to take another look at this. It is obviously safeguarding their position as a coast protection authority, which is the way the noble Earl answered the point; but the inclusion of the particular words here may cast a doubt as to their position when they are not acting as a coast protection authority. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will have it looked into again so that there may not be a doubt cast on the vast volume of activity which the county councils have always carried out under their general powers, without any such specific provision as this.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly look into it again.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With that assurance I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Objections to, and approval of, proposals to carry out coast protection work.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to works schemes, a coast protection authority proposing to carry out any coast protection work, other than work of maintenance or repair, shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct, such notice of that proposal as may be so prescribed or as the Minister may so direct.
(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent a coast protection authority from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land in their area.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (1), after "proposal" to insert "including an estimate of the cost of the work." The noble Viscount said: I have some reason to suppose that if the wording of this Amendment is slightly altered it may stand a chance of being accepted, which would be very agreeable for me. Therefore, with your Lordships' approval, may I move it in this form?—that, instead of the words as printed, the words "specifying the estimated cost of the work comprised in the scheme" should be inserted. I do not think it is necessary to explain this at any great length. I know that the estimation of the cost of coast defence work is extremely difficult, but we feel that there should be some indication given to ratepayers as to whether a particular piece of work is going to cost £10,000, £100,000 or £1,000,000. I beg to move this Amendment in that form.
Amendment, as amended, moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("proposal") insert ("specifying the estimated cost of the work comprised in the scheme").—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hope the noble Viscount will not consider that we have any desire to be niggardly or to indulge in any hair-splitting in regard to

145
our generosity, but the fact is that, while accepting the principle of the Amendment, we like his first version of it better than the second. If he will oblige us by withdrawing the Amendment which he has just moved and substituting the Amendment which stands on the Marshalled List, we shall be glad to accept it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is all the same to me. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I have just moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg now to move the Amendment which stands in the Marshalled List in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("proposal") insert ("including an estimate of the cost of the work").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, after subsection (2) to insert as a new subsection:
"(3) Where any such work as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section is proposed to be carried out in the area of a drainage authority or river board by a coast protection authority (not being a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented) the coast protection authority shall, in addition to the publication required by that subsection, give to the drainage authority or river board notice in writing of the proposal, and the drainage authority or river board may, within the period prescribed under subsection (2) of this section, serve on the Minister and the coast protection authority notice of objection to the proposal on the ground that the proposed work will or will be likely to—

(a) affect detrimentally any of their drainage works; or

(b) interfere with the exercise by the drainage authority or river board of their functions under any enactment other than this Act."

The noble Viscount said: The Minister, in defining various parts of the Bill, has drawn attention to the fact that there is a right of objection. If anyone is to exercise that right, he must know that something has happened to which he should take objection. So the purpose of this Amendment and of a later one at page 10, line 31, which also stands in my name, is to make quite sure that the catchment boards shall be duly notified of any works in their area, so that they
146
may know whether or not there is ground for objection on their part from the practical point of view of their operations. I move this Amendment in order to ensure that the catchment boards are duly informed, individually, of works that are to be undertaken, so that they may judge whether or not those works will affect any works which they themselves have in hand. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are not quite able to accept this Amendment as drafted. We think that if it is included in the Bill difficulties will arise from time to time because it will not be known what drainage authorities will be affected by particular works—that is, in their entirety. But I am authorised to say that if the noble Viscount withdraws this Amendment, an undertaking will be given that in regulations which may be drafted to deal with any particular scheme the subject matter will be dealt with. I trust, therefore, that the noble Viscount will accept this undertaking and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Am I right in thinking that these regulations come under a Special Order, and the Special Order is submitted to this House?
LORD SHEPHERD: Not in this case, I think.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Not in any case, I believe. The position, as I understand it, will be that orders made under this Bill can be negatived by this House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is what I mean.
LORD LLEWELLIN: They do not necessarily come before this House, unless someone raises them. That means that a watch must be kept to see that that is done. I do not know what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, thinks of the reply which he has received, but I should have thought that a coast protection board must know whether its works are likely to affect a particular drainage authority. I understood Lord Shepherd to say that, if words such as the noble Viscount has suggested were put into the

147
Bill, a coast protection board would not know on which drainage authority they had to serve notice. But perhaps I misunderstood what Lord Shepherd said.
LORD SHEPHERD: As the noble Lord will, I am sure, understand, when you do work of this character on the coast you do not know to what extent the coast and the interests of other bodies may be affected. It would make things rather difficult if there were in the Bill a provision which forced us to notify people when we were not quite sure. We thought—agreeing to the pressure which we have had from the bodies concerned in this matter—that we could deal with it much more effectually by regulation than by putting something into the Bill itself.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask this question? We have here a difficulty with which your Lordships are, of course, familiar. I wish to know whether we shall see a draft of these regulations before the Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then how do we know whether the regulations will be effective for what we have in mind? We want to be sure that when work is to be done affecting its area a catchment board will be told. Surely it should not be very difficult, certainly not impossible, for us to see the regulations. I know that Ministers always say that it is, but surely there should be some means by which we can be acquainted with the outline or with the type of the regulations and so can judge whether they meet the case.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Viscount will understand that, generally speaking, regulations cannot be drafted until it is known what the Act itself is to contain. It would not seem to be wise that before a measure became an Act of Parliament we should determine what regulations were going to be made under it. Surely an undertaking given by the Minister that this matter will be dealt with in regulations so that the authorities concerned may know what is afoot, ought to be acceptable. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Stansgate, will see the matter in that light.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My noble friend is so winning in his ways that it is very difficult to resist him. But we have had this difficulty many, many times before. Every old House of Commons man knows it well. A Minister says: "Do not put a provision for this in the Bill; I will do this by regulations." We say: "We would rather see it in the Bill," but in view of the Minister's statement we ask to see the regulation. The Minister then says: "I cannot make the regulation until the Bill is passed." What on earth are we to do in a situation of that kind? It is vital that these authorities should be notified in the circumstances to which I have referred, and I think that the demand we are putting forward is very reasonable. I must say that I am rather surprised that there should be any opposition to it. We are not talking here about small fishery boards or railway companies that may be affected; we are here dealing with a major piece of machinery for protecting the agricultural land of this country. We ask that if something is going to be done to affect the land or works of one of these bodies, they should be told. If I understand it correctly, regulations will be embodied in an order which will come before a Special Committee (I believe we have a Special Committee to deal with such matters) and which can be negatived in this House. Of course, I am only too happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, if a way can be found to see that proper regard is paid to the interests of these people. I have no desire except to do the reasonable thing by these catchment boards.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would point out that this Amendment refers only to any works proposed to be carried out in the area of a drainage authority or a river board. A coast protection authority must know whether or not it is going to do work in the area of one of these bodies, and if such work is going to be done, why should not the body affected be notified? It is not as though it would be necessary to notify a drainage authority in whose area work was not going to be done. Under the terms of this Amendment you have to notify only the authority in whose area you are actually doing work. I should have thought it would not do a great deal of harm to the structure of this Bill to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have not heard a breath of evidence on this side that the Minister is prepared to accept my point. Any arguments have escaped my notice in the course of the debate. If the noble Lord would give me the assurance that these regulations will in fact achieve what is in my Amendment and that they will be embodied in a statutory order subject to a negative Resolution in this House in the ordinary way, I would be satisfied that he had given me something of substance.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is quite true that when these regulations have been drafted they will be in an order which will be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and will be open for discussion and decision.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the order will, in fact, incorporate the points which I now make?
LORD SHEPHERD: It is the purpose of the Government to make quite sure that all persons affected by any work to be done shall have proper notice of what is proposed. It would be against the interest of both the Government and of the authority for it to be otherwise.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No. Surely it is a very simple point. You can write a letter to the authority. There is no difficulty about that. It would seem from the wording of the Bill that this strange Minister who comes for the first time into the work of the catchment boards may be anxious, but not too anxious, to keep them properly informed. If the substance of my Amendment is embodied in regulations, I will withdraw my Amendment. Otherwise, I do not know whether, if my Amendment is negatived, it is prejudiced at Report stage. I do not know the practice here.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am afraid I am very ignorant about these regulations. When, in accordance with the promise made to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, these regulations finally appear, are they subject to amendment if the House decides that they are not in accordance with that promise?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not know what happens about an order in this House, but the practice in another place is that some orders require an
150
affirmative Resolution, but that sort are rare, while most are subject to negative Resolution. I understand that when an order is made, it goes to a special Committee and comes to this House for confirmation. It is then open for noble Lords to say, "Off with its head!" but they cannot amend it in any particular. It is either all or nothing—and it is usually nothing.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is laid down in the first subsection of this clause that facts relating to works shall be published as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct. All I can say is that I have given an undertaking in this matter that the points raised by the noble Viscount will be considered, and that I hope he will be satisfied with what transpires.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I cannot understand what that means. The noble Lord referred to keeping his bat straight, but that was the best blocking motion I have yet heard. He just managed to slice the ball somewhere beside the wicket without it going down. Is the Minister, in these regulations, to direct the coast protection authorities to notify the drainage board that they are going to do work in that area? If the noble Lord can say "Yes" to that question, I gather the noble Viscount behind him will be satisfied, and I shall be satisfied. That is the least we can do for these boards, which have a most valuable function to perform. We have made several attempts to-day, without success, to get them represented on the new coast protection authorities, and the least we can do is to say that when the coast protection authority is to carry on works in their very own area the boards should be notified, so that they may object to it, if necessary. All we want to know is "Yes" or "No." If the noble Lord cannot say that now, I suggest he should be in a position to say it to us on Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will give an assurance that this point will be covered by the Minister's directions or by regulations, wherever appropriate. That, I think, meets the point the noble Viscount has just raised.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Appropriate?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have seen all kinds of Front Benches. We have a most charming Front Bench ourselves. But I have never heard evasion like this. I made a simple request. A letter should be written to an authority saying, for instance, that, "We are going to put up a groyne." The answer is that it will be covered by whatever is thought "appropriate" by the Minister concerned. It is priceless!
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Viscount will listen to what I am saying, I do not think he will misrepresent the import of what I have said. Will he please listen to this? I will give an assurance that this point will be covered by the Minister's directions, or by regulations wherever appropriate. As I indicated to your Lordships, that is all I can say.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If the noble Lord means that it is appropriate for the Minister to deal with it either by regulation or direction, that seems all right; but the point we are making is that it will always be appropriate, where a coast protection authority is putting up works in the area of an authority, to let that authority know. Does the noble Lord see the distinction I am making? If the words mean that it is either in the directions or the regulations, whichever is appropriate, but that it will always be done in one way or the other, I shall be satisfied.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am prepared to answer "Yes."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the noble Lord opposite is satisfied—and he is a lawyer—I will gladly save your Lordships' time by withdrawing my Amendment. I should have thought we could have cleared this up twenty minutes ago.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in subsection (5), before "provisions" to insert "preceding." The noble Viscount said: It is provided that the catchment board should be informed when works are in hand. We have just been discussing
152
how that is to be done. In the case of emergency works, there is no provision in Clause 5 (5). All we ask is that an immediate message in some form should be given to the catchment board. It is obvious that it may affect their work. A telephone message might do, but the requirement should be in the Bill, so that we may have the co-operation between the two authorities which the noble Lord has recommended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after ("the") insert ("preceding").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We are prepared to accept the principle contained in this Amendment. If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment now, I will see that a newly drafted Amendment appears on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
Clause 6 [Power to make schemes for carrying out work]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, after ("pay") insert ("to the authority").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (2), of which the first was to omit the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (a). The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that my powers of anticipation went slightly wrong; the second of these is the Amendment which I thought possibly the Government would accept in the form in which I read it out earlier. The first of these two Amendments, to leave out "and," is drafting. I was misled earlier by the fact that the effect of the second of these Amendments and that of the one I was moving then was the same, whereas the Government wish to distinguish between the two. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("and").(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, at end insert—
("and (c) specifying the estimated cost of all work comprised in the scheme.")—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for moving the form of words which he tried unsuccessfully to move on his former Amendment, and I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Works schemes providing for coast protection charges
(6) Any person aggrieved by the determination of an authority under the last foregoing subsection may appeal to the Minister on the ground that the determination is inequitable or unduly onerous; and the Minister, after giving to the appellant and the authority and any other person appearing to him to be conceined an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, may confirm, reduce or cancel the charge levied upon the appellant as the Minister may think fit.
(8) In this section—
(a) as respects England and Wales, the expression "interest" means the interest of the owner of the land or any other interest being the fee simple or an interest under a tenancy, and the expression "tenancy" includes a tenancy under an under-lease and a tenancy under an agreement for a lease or under-lease but does not include an option to take a tenancy and does not include a mortgage;
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out are not required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out from ("land") to end of line 40.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (3) to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) Where a development charge under section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Central Land Board in respect of any contributory land, any part of the development chare which is attributable to the execution of coast protection work shall he paid by the Board to the coast protection authority."
154
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is occasioned by the new theories of ownership brought about by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. As your Lordships are aware, under the theory of that Act owners now possess only the existing user value of their property; the whole of the potential development value has passed to the State. That seems to mean that if a coast protection authority want to put a charge on land, which they can do under this clause, if they decide to protect it, all they can claim from the owner is the improved value of the particular purpose for which it is being used at that time.
If there is a house standing on the land, they can claim the improved value of the house; if it is an agricultural field, they can claim the improved value of that field. But they cannot claim any of the improved building value of land that has not been built on, because that value no longer belongs to the owner. That will obviously reduce the value of this clause to a coast protection authority. There may be cases where large tracts of agricultural land will be greatly improved as a result of this Bill; but I think such cases will be rare, because in most cases that agricultural land is already protected by catchment boards which, so far as I have been able to understand, are left to carry on as they have done in the past. I do not think anybody is likely to use this clause and put these contributory charges on small pieces of agricultural land, because it would hardly be worth doing. Therefore, unless some such Amendment as that which I propose is inserted, it does not appear that this clause will be used very much, except in the case of the protection of existing buildings. The County Council Association cannot see any logical reason why the Amendment I am proposing should not be inserted. If the coast protection authorities improve the value of property which now belongs to the Central Land Board, why should they not pay a contribution in the same way as any other owner?
I am not attempting to argue this on high theoretical grounds; it seems to be a question of plain mathematics. I have already pointed out that unless this Amendment is passed the clause is unlikely to be used. I would go further and say that unless the Government are prepared to pay this sum, or a quid pro

155
quo, to the coast protection authorities for protecting values that now belong to them, the Bill itself is not likely to be used very much. After all, there has been little legislation dealing with coast protection, but a good deal has been done in more vital parts, under private legislation and through catchment boards. The main reason why more has not been done is simply that it has not been worth stopping these odd bits of cliffs from falling into the sea. If the Government are going to take all the building value out of the land, the incentive to local authorities to protect their land will be still smaller than it has been up to now. Unless the Government are prepared to pay to the coast protection authority at least the equivalent of these values, and probably a good deal more, it seems very unlikely that anything will be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The effect of this Amendment would be to secure the development value of land as building land for the local authorities instead of for the State, through the Central Land Board. That is contrary to the principle of the 1947 Act, which laid down that such values would accrue to the State. We cannot see why land adjacent to the coast which has been protected by some scheme for preventing erosion should be treated differently from land in any other part of the country. The noble Viscount said it was depriving local authorities of an incentive if they were not able to reap the development value of the land they are going to protect. I do not altogether agree with him. The local authorities who engage in one of these schemes will be able to claim a grant from the Treasury if they wish to get Treasury assistance for their scheme.
One of the arguments which they could use would be: "We are going to protect land which might otherwise be washed away but which, if we protect it, will become of value to the Treasury at a later stage if developed as a building site." I think they stand to gain in that way by being able to use that argument in order to obtain financial assistance from the Exchequer. I do feel that it is not right to say as a principle that this land
156
should be treated differently from other land. After all, the land requires work done on it, not only because it is protected, but because it happens to be situated in an area which is suitable for development, which has public works, gas and electricity, and where people want to live. I really cannot see any good reason for making an exception in this case.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope my noble friend will not be satisfied with that explanation, because it seems to me that his Amendment is a matter of only simple justice. The unfortunate boards and people who find this money, will be very hard put to it to raise that money. Why on earth, when they expend the local ratepayers' money, and thereby create a development value which someone is going to have, should they not get some share of it? I am quite certain that my noble friend is right when he says there will not be much incentive on the part of the authorities to do this work if they can avoid it, unless this Amendment, in some form, is passed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I was a little concerned to hear the noble Earl say that this would be a way in which the local authority could try to persuade the Treasury to give a grant. Believe me, nothing is going to be done under this Bill unless the Treasury do give grants—and pretty substantial grants—because these are costly works. I hope that in any case where it is valuable to have one of these coast protection works—even if there is no development charge likely to follow—there will be some help from the Treasury; otherwise this Bill will be completely ineffective.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not mean to suggest for a moment that the major argument as to the necessity of the work, and the need of the authorities engaged to receive assistance from public funds, was not going to be used to carry more weight with the Treasury than the minor argument which I mentioned.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am a little confused by the noble Earl's argument, which seems to be that the local authority have no right to this money, and that it is quite wrong that they should wish to have this value but that nevertheless it would be a good argument when approaching the Treasury. The local authorities would say: "Here we are protecting this land.

157
We acknowledge we have no right to it, but we think it is a very good argument to persuade you to give us a lot of money." It seems to me as broad as it is long. I was quite a little concerned from a different angle as to the rights of these local authorities which are now claimed by the State, but I do not wish to digress into the higher realms of town planning. I must take it that what the noble Earl has said is correct, that we shall not "get away" with this argument, but we shall stand a chance of receiving an equivalent payment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (4):
"and in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection a coast protection charge shall be payable by the person who, at the time of the determination of the interest by reference to which the charge is to be levied is entitled to that interest."
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) provides that the interests in the land shall be determined as soon as maybe after the work has been completed. The Amendment which I am moving secures that where the determination of coast protection charges is deferred until after the works are carried out, the charge in respect of an interest is to be payable by the person entitled to that interest at the time the determination is made. This seems to be the most practicable and reasonable course in view of the circumstances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page, 9, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved in subsection (8) to leave out "the interest of the owner of the land or any other interest being." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment, and perhaps your Lordships will not mind if I pay strict attention to my notes. As the Bill is drafted, it provides for the recovery of charges both from the mortgagee and from the mortgagor, the respective charges being limited to the betterment of the respective interests. It is possible, in certain cases, where that method is adopted, for the collection of charges to be greater than the amount of betterment determined, and it has been felt that
158
there should be a variation to the extent that only one person should have the charges fixed upon hint. There is, however, the case to be dealt with where the mortgagee has entered into possession or put in a receiver. Here he is, for the time being, the effective owner of the land. The proposed new subsection (5) to Clause 10 accordingly provides that in such a case the charge shall be recoverable from him; but under Clause 11 (2), as proposed to be amended, the mortgagee will be able to get the amount of the charge back out of the land on sale or redemption—that is to say, when he ceases to be the owner—and will be entitled to interest in the meanwhile.
The agent, who is in receipt of the rackrent on behalf of his principal, is an "owner" within the definition of Clause 44, and as Clause 7 (8) (a) is drafted, a coast protection charge would be recoverable from him as agent, subject to the limitation in Clause 10 (5) that he cannot be made to pay any amount greater than the money he has in hand as agent. This is right in principle, but as a matter of machinery the Bill, as introduced, is not entirely satisfactory. This is because the amount of a coast protection charge is limited by the betterment of the interest of the owner, and it is difficult to say that an agent, as such, has any interest. Accordingly, the Amendment proposed to Clause 7 (8) (a) cuts the agent out, so that the charge will be levied on his principal But the new subsection (6) proposed to Clause 10 enables the charge to be collected from the agent, subject always to the limitation mentioned above, that the agent cannot be made to pay beyond the amount of money which he has received for his principal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out from ("means") to ("the") in line 9.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand that the noble Lord has been dealing not only with the Amendment which was called but with his Amendments to Clause 10 and Clause 11.
LORD SHEPHERD: I certainly made reference to them.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I take it that all three together have the effect that the noble Lord has explained to the House.

159
I think he was extremely wise, if I may say so, to stick to the exact words that were given to him: I do not know whether he fully understood their implication, but I certainly did not. We have not had this Amendment on the Order Paper for very long, as the noble Lord will realise, and so far as I am concerned I shall be prepared to take all three on trust now. Perhaps we may have to revert to one or more of them on the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Confirmation of works schemes
8.—(1) A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct, a notice stating that the scheme has been prepared and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours, and shall serve copies of the scheme on the owner and occupier of any land, other than land vested in and occupied by the authority, on which the work provided for by the scheme is to be carried out.
(2) If the scheme provides for the levying of coast protection charges the authority shall also serve copies of the scheme—
(b) where the scheme contains such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, on all owners of contributory land, and not only on those on whom copies of the scheme would be required to be served by the last foregoing subsection.
(3) Where a notice has been published by an authority under subsection (1) of this section, any person may serve on the Minister and on the authority, in the manner and within the period prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, notice of objection to the scheme on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary, or that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector, or that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory land includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to be so indicated, or, in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from "publish" down to "as" and insert:
160
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority and in such further manner, if any."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will observe on the first line and onwards in Clause 8 the words:
"A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, or …"
I am seeking to leave out the words after "publish" and to put in, as is nearly always done in these measures, the words:
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority and in such further manner, if any,"
There may be some cases where the Minister will want to prescribe publication of a very large scheme in a London newspaper. That will probably not always be necessary with most of the smaller schemes, but we should do the same in this Bill as we have done in others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("publish") to ("as") in line 25, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It may save your Lordships' time if I am permitted to refer briefly to an Amendment in my name which follows immediately and deals with a similar point. My Amendment is to the effect that notification should be given to catchment boards in writing. That is the same point except that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is speaking of publication in the newspapers. I should be quite satisfied if I were given to understand that this point was covered by the assurance which the Minister gave a little earlier in the debate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We accept gladly the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but we should like the form of words changed a little. I should be much obliged if he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment and substitute a different form of words. I will give him the form I am suggesting, so that he can make certain whether or not the words correspond with his intentions. I suggest that on page 10, line 24, the words between "publish" and "a notice" in line 26 should be omitted, and in their place the words:
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority"

161
be substituted. The passage will then read:
"(1) A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority, a notice stating that the scheme has been prepared. …"
I think that that meets the noble Lord's point. It is merely a drafting alteration.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I shall be quite prepared to move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble Earl. I think that would be the better way. I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I move to omit the words between "publish" on page 10 of line 24, and "a notice" in line 26, and to substitute the words: "in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority."
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("publish") to ("a notice") in line 26, and insert ("in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority").—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where any such scheme as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section affects any part of the area of a drainage authority or river board, and the coast protection authority by whom the scheme is prepared is not a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented, the coast protection authority shall, in addition to the publication required by that subsection, give to the drainage authority or river board notice in writing of the proposed scheme, accompanied by a copy thereof, and the drainage authority or river board may, within the period prescribed under subsection (3) of this section, serve on the Minister and the coast protection authority notice of objection to the proposal on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme will or will be likely to—

(a) affect detrimentally any of their drainage works; or

(b) interfere with the exercise by the drainage authority or river board of their functions under any enactment other than this Act."

The noble Viscount said: I referred to this matter a few moments ago. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he is going to put down an Amendment on the Report stage specifying how catchment boards
162
are to be informed—whether there are to be some words which will reassure those who have been uncertain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: The undertaking I gave was that the matter should be dealt with in the regulations, and that river boards and drainage authorities would be advised.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The regulations would say that they must be advised?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, that they would be advised. I did not say that we would bring the matter up on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I understand that the situation is that my request that a letter should be sent to catchment boards is to be met by a regulation, but we cannot see the regulation for the time being: that is not in accord with, so to speak, the virginity of the Department; they never reveal these things prematurely! But what we can be sure is that these things will be put in the regulation. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of drawing attention to the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Clause 8 (2) (b) reads as follows:
"where the scheme contains such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, on all owners of contributory land, and not only on those on whom copies of the scheme would he required to be served by the last foregoing subsection."
I seek to insert here the words "as well as" instead of the words "and not only." These copies have to be served not only on owners but on other persons interested. What we want to make quite certain of is that the words which we have here in paragraph (b) do not cut out the proper service on other persons who may be interested, such as occupiers who are not necessarily the owners. I do not like the wording as it stands because, on my reading of it, it looks as if it is only

163
necessary to serve these notices on owners, whereas that is not the case. For that reason, I am suggesting some alteration in the wording. However, I do not think this is the best wording. I would sooner have said "not only on those persons on whom copies of the scheme would be required." I should like to ask the noble Earl if the wording could be altered so that it will mean what we all want it to mean. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("and not only") and insert ("as well as").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We also want these notices served upon occupiers, as well as upon owners of land. There is no difference between us on that. We are not happy about the wording of the clause as it stands, but we are also not completely happy about the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. If the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, we, with the draftsman, will examine the wording carefully before the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: From what the noble Earl has said, I can see that we are at one in what we want. Neither of us thinks that the present words are quite right. However, I agree that mine are not quite right either. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (3), after "period" to insert: "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It is to ensure that an adequate minimum time is secured for the arrival of notices of objection, so that proper consideration can be given to the matter. I understand that the noble Lord opposite is prepared to consider the words that are down on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("period") insert ("not being less than twenty-eight days").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I have pleasure in saying that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Exemption of work from planning permission and development charge.
". The carrying out by the owner of any land of work specified or authorised in or by a works scheme shall be deemed not to constitute development for the purposes of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and no development charge shall be payable in respect thereof under Part VII of the said Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to lay down that the Central Land Board shall not raise a development charge upon any works that are carried out on coast protection works themselves. Many people may think that it is not necessary to put that provision in this Bill but, although this is neither the time nor the occasion to discuss this, perhaps we shall have an opportunity in the future of doing so. From my present knowledge, it would be just as well to have this provision put into the Bill. The Board are wonderfully good tax-gatherers at the present moment! They seize on any possible chance to get a little more into the Exchequer. It would be quite wrong that a man should have to pay a development charge on a sea wall that he has actually built. I think that would be the general agreement of the whole House. It is with that end in view that I beg to move, quite shortly, the clause that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course, we agree with the noble Lord opposite that the actual land upon which the work is done does not increase in value as a result of the work, and the work should not be liable for payment of a development charge. I believe that this is a subject bristling with technical difficulties, which the officials at the Ministry of Health are at present discus-

165
sing with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I should be obliged if the noble Lord would withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that, after these consultations have been completed, I will raise the point again on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. When he says "I will raise the point again," let us be quite clear. Does that mean that he will put down some Amendment to meet the point, or does he want me to put down this Amendment on the next stage so that the point should be met?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I very carefully did not say either of those things, because the conclusion may be reached that the point is met by the Bill as it stands. I would be obliged if the noble Lord would leave it at that. If he is not satisfied with the conclusion reached, he will still have plenty of time to put down an Amendment of his own.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I will leave it like that. We want the same thing.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it will be necessary to put it in this Bill. When the matter eventually conies to be considered again, I would like to put in words that the noble Earl considers the Government would approve, because I do not pride myself on being a draftsman. If we could have some form of words which we can discuss between us, that would be the better way of doing it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree. I would naturally like the noble Lord, if he would be so good, to come into the discussions between now and Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Recovery of coast protection charges]:
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment says that a man shall not have an order made on him to pay by instalments unless he asks that that should be done. That is the simple purport of this Amendment. Normally, when payment is by instalments, it is the man who is paying who is asking for time to pay. I think it is right in this case that, where a man wants to pay in a lump sum, he ought to
166
be allowed to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, after ("may") insert ("if he so requires").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the discussion we had just now, I beg formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 36, at end insert:
("(5) Where the interest by reference to which a coast protection charge is levied is subject to a mortgage, and at the time when the charge or any instalment in respect thereof is payable the mortgagee is in possession or in receipt of the rents or profits, the charge or instalment shall be payable by the mortgagee, and not by the person entitled to the interest.
(6) Where at the time when a coast protection charge or any instalment in respect thereof is payable a person is in receipt of the rents and profits of land as agent for the person entitled to the interest by reference to which the charge is levied, the charge or instalment may, subject to the next following subsection, be recovered from the agent.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Incidence of coast protection charges, etc.
(2) Any amount paid in respect of any such charge or expenses by a mortgagee may be added by him to the amount charged on the land by the mortgage; but nothing in this subsection shall render any such amount recoverable from the mortgagor personally.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is little more than drafting. It makes it clear that where a mortgagee in possession has paid a coast protection charge, or incurred expenses in carrying out work under a works scheme, when he comes to reimburse himself on a sale or redemption the charge or expenses will have the same priority as the mortgage debt. The Amendment also states expressly that until sale or redemption the mortgagee will be entitled to interest, at the rate fixed by mortgage, on the amount of the charge or expenses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, leave out from ("mortgagee") to ("recoverable") in line 15 and insert ("shall be treated as if it were secured by the mortgage, with the like priority and with interest at the same rate as the mortgage money:
Provided that, without prejudice to the recovery of interest, the said amount shall not be").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Recovery of cost of maintenance of works not constructed under works schemes
13.—(1) Where under the last foregoing section a coast protection authority have carried out any work of maintenance or repair on works not being works constructed, altered or improved under a works scheme and not being works in respect of which a scheme is in force under this section, the authority may subject to the provisions of this section on the completion of the work recover the reasonable cost of the carrying out of the work from the owner of the land on which the works are situated.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "owner," to insert "or occupier." The noble Lord said: This is a question of where the cost should fall when repairs and maintenance works are carried out to preserve the land in its present state. In a number of these cases the owner certainly is not the person who mainly benefits; the occupier benefits equally. My suggestion is that in appropriate cases the occupier should pay the reasonable cost, or at any rate some part of it. It is for those reasons that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We of course agree that it should be possible to recover some part of the cost from the occupier as well as from the owner. I would like to suggest to the noble Lord that we should accept his first Amendment, but that his later Amendments, which I think are consequential on that Amendment, should be withdrawn in order that we may have a chance of examining with the draftsmen the exact consequences entailed. They may be exactly as the noble Lord anticipates.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl and I accept his offer immediately. There may have to be some consequential Amendments following the lines of the Local Government Act, determining in appropriate cases where the burden should fall. I certainly agree that the effect of the acceptance of the Amendments will have to be looked into. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for accepting the first one, and I shall not move the others.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Compulsory acquisition of land]:
LORD SHEPHERD: I have two Amendments to this clause, and they are for the purpose of drafting. Clause 14, as a whole, deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, and it seems more convenient to turn subsection (3), which deals with incidental use of land acquired, into a separate clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 28.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Compensation for depreciation and disturbance]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) to omit "immediately." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Clause 15, subsection (2) reads as follows:
"For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection an interest in land shall be deemed to be depreciated if and so far as the value thereof immediately after the completion of the work is less than it would then be if the work had not been carried out."
I think the word "immediately" is quite unnecessary, and I beg to move that we leave it out.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("immediately").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I would like to support this Amendment because I feel that not only is the word "immediately" not necessary, but it is in fact impossible in many cases to tell whether land has depreciated immediately or not. It might well be that there would be no evidence of depreciation until, shall we say, after the next spring tides, which might well do a little damage. Of course, the noble Earl may think it a rather severe step to take out the word "immediately," but I should have thought the words "some reasonable time," or something like that, might appeal to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there may be some misunderstanding about the implication of the word "immediately," because I am told that the damage which would have to be assessed in order to arrive at the difference in the value of the land after work had been clone, would take into account damage that might transpire some time after the work had been executed—for instance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said after a tide had been diverted and perhaps made an encroachment on land on another part of the coast. However, I am a little doubtful in my own mind on this problem. I shall be prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment if he will accept from me the further point that I am not completely happy about it, and I may wish to propose another form of words when the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (7):
"and any reference to land shall include a reference to fishing rights."
The noble Lord said: This was only an attempt to get rights for England that Scotland seems to have under this Part of the Bill. I am told that I was acting under somewhat of a misapprehension,
170
because, for some reason which I cannot understand, in Scotland fishing is actually part of the freehold. How it can be so I cannot understand. It certainly is not so in England. But, as I say, I acted under a misapprehension in trying to get these matters into line. With that explanation and apology for having put down a needless Amendment, I propose not to move it.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: May I intervene at this stage to say that we think that such good progress has been made to-day that we feel that this will be a convenient moment to adjourn? Before we adjourn, however, I wish to say that it is being arranged that we shall resume the Committee stage of this Bill on Tuesday next.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Will it be taken before, or after, the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill?
LORD WALKDEN: After.
House resumed.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
Referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.