Sitting of 17 March 1949

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

    Newsprint (Price)
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the President of the Board of Trade why the price of newsprint imported to this country from Scandinavia has been fixed at £41 10s. a ton, when United States importers are only paying £28 for it.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): The price at which Scandinavian newsprint is bought in this country is a matter for the purchasers to negotiate. United Kingdom imports are effected by the Newsprint Supply Company, which is an organisation set up by the newspaper proprietors themselves, and I understand that they have agreed to pay for Scandinavian newsprint in the first half of 1949 the prices ruling in the United Kingdom.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is newsprint imported by private enterprise or under bulk purchase?
    Mr. Wilson: Newsprint is imported by the Newsprint Supply Company which is an associate of the Newspaper Proprietors Association, which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman would regard as private enterprise.

  Israel (Trade Representative)
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to facilitate the competition of British commercial interests for a fair share of the import trade of the State of Israel; and if a representative of British trade interests has been appointed to the State of Israel.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Steps are being taken to appoint a commercial representative. The provision of normal export credit facilities, as far as conditions permit, is under consideration.
  Sir P. Hannon: In view of the immense contributions which this country has made to the establishment of the present State of Israel, is it not the function of the President of the Board of Trade to secure as large a part of their import market as possible?
  Mr. Wilson: We are very anxious to develop trade with this country. There are certain difficulties to be ironed out, and there will have to be negotiations about them, but as the hon. Gentleman will see from the answer, we are taking all the steps open to us at the moment.

  Ceylon
  Sir P. Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature and extent of the organisation which has been created for the development and expansion of British trade in Ceylon.
  Mr. H. Wilson: To assist in the development and expansion of United Kingdom trade in Ceylon, a Trade Commissioner post was opened in Colombo in July, 1946. The Trade Commissioner has two assistants, a market officer and clerical staff.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will the President of the Board of Trade do everything possible to encourage reciprocal trade relations between Ceylon and this country?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, that is being done.

  South African Wines and Brandy
  Sir P. Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he contemplates any proposal for the encouragement of the import of South African wines and brandy to this country with priority over similar articles from foreign countries.
  Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. Permitted imports from South Africa of wines and brandy are at present well in excess, by volume, of pre-war imports and compare favourably in this regard with similar imports from foreign countries. As the hon. Member will be aware, South Africa

  2253
  already enjoys some measure of preference in the matter of Customs duties on wines and brandy.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of the high quality of these wines and brandy from South Africa, and will he do everything in his power to see that they are imported into this country?
  Mr. Wilson: I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to make comparisons and comments on the quality of these imports. We approach this matter in relation to pre-war imports from this and other countries.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that we are due to make some tangible contribution towards the ideas of Benelux in the Council of Europe?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the Minister reconsider this matter in view of the fact that the prosperity of the South African wine trade is very largely dependent on the preference which it receives from this country and remember that once before we ruined the wine trade in South Africa?
  Mr. Wilson: It is not a question of reducing preference. The present amount which we are importing is regulated by agreement between ourselves and the South African Government.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is no reason why it should not be increased.

  Hungary (Negotiations)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to re-open negotiations with the Hungarian Government, with a view to the conclusion of a long-term trade agreement.
  Mr. H. Wilson: No such negotiations are necessary. A three-year agreement about supplies of foodstuffs from Hungary was concluded in June, 1947, and runs to July, 1950.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of what the Minister of State said yesterday about Hungary's violation of her treaty obligations, is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that this economic agreement will be honoured?
  Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend resist any suggestion that political
  2254
  differences with Hungary should impede the development of trade between Eastern and Western Europe on which the fulfilment of the purpose of the Marshall Plan depends?
  Mr. Wilson: I think I have always made it clear that we do not regard trade agreements as a means of convincing other countries of our views on what they may be doing in other directions. At the same time, it is a fact that there are certain hold-ups about trade talks with Hungary at the present time because of the Hungarian Government's treatment of British commercial interests in Hungary. and until those are satisfactorily cleared up we cannot go on with the expansion of further trade with that country.

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Mr. Skeffingtonasked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of his Department in relation to the export from the United Kingdom of works of art.
  Mr. H. Wilson: The policy is to issue licences in cases where the proposed export does not involve the loss of a national treasure and where an appropriate return of currency is to be received. Temporary exports for exhibition abroad are also approved subject to satisfactory undertakings being given regarding return to this country.
  Mr. SkeffingtonWho advises the Board of Trade on what really are works of art?
  Mr. Wilson: Well. it depends on the works of art in question, but the appropriate national gallery or museum authorities usually advise the Board of Trade about both the value and the national treasure worth of any proposed export.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the body appropriate to advise on the particular work of art to be exported be consulted?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. As I said just now, we consult the appropriate national gallery or museum authority, depending on the export in question.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply refer only to major works of art, the better known ones, or is a watch kept on the export of such things as old silver; and is it not

  2255
  the policy of the Government to prevent this country being depleted altogether of these things?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; this is not related merely to major works of art. I well remember recent cases involving exports of lesser value—suits of armour, and various other things—which might be regarded as worth keeping in this country.

  Cars (Export)
  Air-Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his return of cars sold for export includes those cars which left this country on a sale-or-return basis.
  Mr. H. Wilson: The export figures shown in the trade accounts cover all cars exported from this country. I am, however, advised that it is not the practice of the motor industry to export cars on a sale-or-return basis.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Does that mean that every car that leaves this country is paid for before it leaves?
  Mr. Wilson: Not every car is paid for; many of them are, of course, paid for on delivery. Certainly the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have told us that they have no knowledge of any cars sent abroad on a sale-or-return basis.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the many statements which are being circulated at the present time about these cars; and would he do something to deny them, or get the appropriate organisation to do so?
  Mr. Wilson: I am aware of many statements about exports and the alleged return of exports of both cars and other things. I am trying to check some at the moment. The facts I have stated are the facts given to us by the trading interests concerned.

  Washing Machines (Imports)
  Mr. Piratinasked the President of the Board of Trade how many washing machines were imported from the United States of America during 1948; and what was their value.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that this information is not available as washing machines are not distinguished separately in the trade returns.
  Mr. Piratin: Could the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether washing machines have been imported, and would he give this information to the House? British firms manufacturing these machines are now becoming redundant, and it is not necessary to import these machines from the United States.
  Mr. Wilson: It is a fact that domestic electrically-operated washing machines are on the token imports list, and the few that may have come in have undoubtedly come in as token imports, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to interfere.

  Hosiery Repair Needles (Imports)
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the President of the Board of Trade how many hosiery repair needles were imported in the year 1948; and what licences for further imports are current.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that this information is not available.
  Mr. Chamberlainasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that hosiery repair needles are being imported for use in conjunction with machines manufactured by a French company established in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that such importation is detrimental to an all British manufacturing company which has been granted a limited production permit of machines and needles, and of the stated policy of his Department, he will reconsider the permission of this import.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I am not prepared to prohibit the importation of these needles. Prohibition could not be justified on balance of payments grounds. It would also lead to suspension of manufacture of machines of which the needles form a small but indispensable part.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Is it fair to this company, which is working on a very low quota, that there should be this tremendous flood of needles from abroad—because it is a tremendous flood—to fit machines manufactured by this French

  2257
  company established in this country; and is that in accordance with the policy which has been laid down?
  Mr. Wilson: I cannot accept the statement that there is a flood of needles coming in. Certainly import licensing was not designed, and has never been operated, for the protection of individual manufacturers. What is happening is perfectly fair, and most of the needles are being incorporated in machines now made in this country.
  Mr. Chamberlain: That answer is so unsatisfactory that I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the question on the Adjournment.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Coke Allowance
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the large stocks of coke which have accumulated in this country, he intends to increase the domestic ration of this fuel.
    Mr. Draysonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to take coke off the ration.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Although the supply of coke has increased, it is not yet sufficient to enable all restrictions on its consumption to be lifted. I propose, however, to increase the maximum permitted quantity of boiler fuel which can be obtained without licence in the year beginning 1st May next from two tons to three tons. Not more than two out of the three tons will be obtainable without licence in the form of anthracite, dry steam coal and manufactured fuels, since these are still very scarce.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the Minister take further steps to ensure that better quality coke is provided?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware that there has been any particular complaint about the quality of coke.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: It is very bad indeed.

  Opencast Mining
  Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why his Department has decided to use View Tree
  2258
  site, at Harley, in the parish of Wentworth, for opencast coalmining, despite the fact that 23½ acres of it is woodland and 78¼ acres is part of a pedigree Ayrshire dairy farm of 112¾ acres, and despite the Rotherham Rural District Council having unanimously decided to protest against any further destruction in the parish of Wentworth.
  Mr. Gaitskell: It is proposed to work this site because it contains an exceptionally rich deposit of about 800,000 tons of very good coal, the value of which is estimated at approximately £12,000 per acre. To win an equivalent quantity from other agricultural land would normally entail the working of about four times the area required at this particular site.
  Major Legge-Bourke: What will the Minister do for Mr. Loveley, the tenant of this farm; will the right hon. Gentleman give him proper compensation to ensure that he is able to keep his herd somewhere else?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think the hon. and gallant Member will be aware that the question of compensation is really one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.
  Major Legge-Bourke: And very unsatisfactory it is.
  Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why his Department has decided to use Boulder Falls site, to the south of the main Wentworth site, for opencast coalmining, despite the fact that it contains a seven acre plantation of immature hardwoods, and despite its leaving the farm tenants of 87 acres with only seven acres.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Because the site contains a rich deposit of 500,000 tons of good quality coal estimated to be worth £6,500 an acre, and because the winning of an equivalent quantity of coal from other agricultural land would normally entail the requisitioning of more than twice the area required here.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the Minister realise that the decision to use this site involves the tenant farmer being put completely out of business, and will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that this man is enabled to earn a livelihood somewhere else in the district, and that he does not have to give up the whole of his farm?
  Mr. Gaitskell: These are very grave issues, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the tenant farmer in question, but the question of compensation is not, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, one which should be addressed to me.
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the danger to persons and property caused by rock blasting and the detriment to the health of local inhabitants caused by all night rock tipping at the Winstanley Hall Opencast Coal No. 3A site, he will order an immediate cessation of operations there.
  Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Is the Minister aware of the large number of letters I have sent to him and his Department, and that on 21st February, I sent him a copy of a letter I had received from the Medical Officer of Health and members of the town council? Is he also aware that I followed that up with an interview, and that as a result of that a meeting is to take place on Monday next on the site with members of the local town council and other people? Is he further aware that I have had letters of thanks from the people in that district appreciating my efforts on their behalf? Is it right, just, honest or honourable for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) to clutter up the Order Paper with matters about which he knows nothing?
  Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend has been most persistent on behalf of his constituents, and I can assure the House that with his help and advice we shall be able to deal with this problem.
  Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister consider especially the grievances of those householders about whom I have written to him, who have been so shamefully neglected by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) solely because most of them are Tories?
  Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a charge of that kind against an hon. Member who is a long serving Member of this House without giving some information in confirmation of his statement?
  Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult. I allowed the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) to ask the first supplementary question, because it was his constituency and, therefore, he was entitled to say what he had done. If I may say so, it is a little unfortunate that he rather threw the ball into the arena at the end of his question by saying that it was not fair for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) to put this question. That is a matter of opinion, but then the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale threw the ball back. Once the ball is in play like that, it is very difficult for the referee, and I suggest now that we had better proceed to the next Question.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) played a clean ball but all that the hon. Member opposite did was to throw a handful of mud.

  Domestic Supplies
  Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the amount of domestic coal supplied to the city of Bristol is less than is required to give registered consumers their proper allocation; that the number of coal registrations is rapidly increasing; and what steps he is taking to provide the city with sufficient domestic fuel to meet the allocation requirements of all its consumers.
  Mr. Gaitskell: As I have explained on a number of occasions, the maximum permitted quantities are not rations or allocations to which consumers are entitled but are limits up to which they may buy according to their needs if supplies are available. Receipts by merchants against allocations in Bristol have, in fact, been slightly higher than for the country as a whole, but as stocks are low some additional supplies are being despatched. The latest available figures of registrations show that the number of registrations in Bristol increased by 2½ per cent. between May and November of last year which is about the same as the average for the country as a whole.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister satisfied that a week's stock in the city is sufficient? Is he aware that the sidings used for coal stocks are now used for other purposes, and will he, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, see that more

  2261
  sidings are made available for the stocks of coal in the city?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I will look into the matter of sidings, but I am quite satisfied that a week's stock in Bristol should be adequate at this time of the year.
  Mr. Donovanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the quantity of domestic coal for each registered consumer supplied to the Leicester Cooperative Society for delivery to its customers for the period from 1st November, 1948, to date; and how much short of the 30 cwt. allocation per registered consumer he expects each such consumer to be for the current period when that period ends on 30th April next.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The amount of house coal received by the Leicester Co-operative Society from the 1st November to 5th March represents an average of 16 cwt. per registered consumer which is slightly higher than the average for the Leicester district; the deliveries have also been augmented by withdrawals from stocks. For the half year 1st November to 1st May deliveries are expected to amount on the average to about 23½cwt. per registered consumer.
  Mr. Donovan: Could the Minister give any further help in overcoming the shortage? I acknowledge that he has helped already.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I have to arrange for coal to be distributed as fairly as possible throughout the country, but just at the moment, owing to the fact that consumers are free to change their merchants, there is a certain tendency for merchants to get hold of as much coal as possible.

  Mining Subsidence (Report)
  Mr. Arthur Allenasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any statement to make respecting the Report of the Committee on Mining Subsidence, Command Paper No. 7637.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on 24th February.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Oil Refining
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what expenditure is planned for the expansion of the oil refining industry in this country; and how long he anticipates it will take for the output of home refineries to be raised to the level of 20,000,000 tons a year.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 9th December last.
    Colonel Ropner: Can the Minister say what is the chief reason preventing a large addition to refining capacity?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is nothing preventing the addition, except that it takes time to build the refineries.

  NORTH-WESTERN ELECTRICITY BOARD
  Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a position to announce the regulations to be made under Section 23 of the Electricity Act, 1947, for the distribution to local authorities, now incorporated in the North-Western Electricity Board, of the global sum of £5 million.
  Mr. Gaitskell: This matter is still being discussed by my Department with the associations representing local authorities.

  PETROL SUPPLIES

    Parliamentary Candidates
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions have been given to regional petroleum officers regarding the issue of petrol to bona fide prospective Parliamentary candidates to carry on their election campaign prior to the General Election.
    Mr. Gaitskell: All candidates are granted allowances for the actual period of an election campaign. In addition, between elections block allocations of petrol coupons are made to the party agents of political parties represented in Parliament to cover the requirements in each constituency of the agent himself, the prospective candidate, if any. and party

    2263
    officers working in the constituency. These arrangements were agreed with the representatives of the political parties and have, in fact, been in operation ever since petrol rationing was introduced. While we cannot, of course, grant an allowance to every person who says he wishes to stand for Parliament, I am nevertheless considering whether, for the benefit of prospective candidates of political organisations not represented in the House, some modification in the arrangement would be practicable without danger of abuse.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the fact that there are many persons, particularly those independent of any party, who were Members of this House before the last General Election who wish to stand again, can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that his cogitations will lead to an early answer so that these people will not be debarred from making an effort to rejoin this House?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It was with cases of precisely that kind in mind that I decided that we had better look into the matter, but it is not a very easy one with which to deal.

  Summer Holidays
  Mr. Greyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is prepared to make a statement as to whether an extra allocation of petrol will be available to motorists for the Summer holiday season.
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the steadily improving world supplies of petroleum, he can now say when he will abolish petrol rationing.
  Mr. Gaitskell: As the House will recall, from 1st May onwards, no further deductions from supplementary allowances will be made in respect of the standard ration, the annual cost of which will therefore increase from 120,000 tons to about 360,000 tons of petrol. At this level it will certainly absorb the whole of the savings obtained from suppressing the black market. In view of the fact that any additional imports of motor spirit have to be paid for in dollars, and since, as the Economic Survey points out,
  2264
  we still have a serious dollar deficit, the Government have decided that no permanent increase in the standard ration can yet be afforded.
  Nevertheless, in view of the substantial recovery which has been achieved, it has been decided to issue a special summer holiday bonus. This will be done by doubling the value of the coupons for June, July and August in the next standard ration book, so that for these months, each coupon will be worth its face value in gallons instead of half its face value as at present. In order to assist those who wish to take their holidays early, I have arranged for the new books to be available early in May, and I propose to make all the coupons valid from the date of issue. They will continue to be valid, as in the case of the present book, for the five months following the month shown upon them. Thus the value of the next standard ration book will be increased from approximately 540 miles to 810 miles of motoring, and motorists will be able to use all or any of the coupons in the book from early in May till the end of the Summer.
  Mr. Grey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that he made the statement after the Sowerby by-election?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure the House will agree with me that the actual statement itself is almost as important as the result of the Sowerby by-election.
  Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether this welcome increase will be given without any increase in the current rate of motor taxation?
  Mr. Gaitskell: That is hardly a question to address to me.
  Mr. John Paton: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any estimate of the quantity required for this additional concession?
  Mr. Gaitskell: About 90,000 tons.
  Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the view of an Independent Member of this House he is doing very well?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the month of September and to adjustments in the case of Scotland, where September is a very important month of the holiday season?
  Mr. Gaitskell: The coupons are equally valid in September as they are in June, July and August.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were committed to prison in 1947 and 1948, respectively. for failure to comply with wife-maintenance orders.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Two thousand, nine hundred and fifty-five persons were committed to prison in England and Wales for failure to comply with wife-maintenance orders in 1947. I regret that similar information is not yet available for 1948.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are considerable inequalities in the sentences that have been imposed under these Acts, and is he satisfied with the general working of these Acts?
  Mr. Ede: I have no doubt there are inequalities, because the circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration and the circumstances vary.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the case of men who leave their jobs and get jobs with the Admiralty and thereby escape having to pay maintenance?

  MISSING PERSONS, LONDON
  Mr. Edward Evansasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women, respectively, have been reported in the Metropolitan Police area as missing from their homes, without trace, during 1948; and what was the average number during the periods 1945–47 and 1930–39.
  Mr. Ede: The number of persons. including those deliberately concealing their whereabouts, in 1948 was 1,241, of whom 20 men and six women are as yet
  2266
  untraced. The annual average of the three years 1945–47 was 1,613 of whom 15 men and seven women are still untraced; that for the years 1938 and 1939 was 3,552, all of whom were traced. I regret earlier figures are not available.
  Mr. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend any figures for the rest of the country? Can he give us any information to show to what extent the Metropolitan police area is typical?
  Mr. Ede: I have no responsibility outside the Metropolitan police area.
  Mr. Cecil Poole: In cases where men are deliberately concealing their whereabouts because there are court orders for maintenance against them and where the police are in possession of information about those whereabouts, can the police make the facts known to those who have to enforce orders?
  Mr. Ede: If there is a court order and the police know the whereabouts of the man concerned, the order is served. When I say deliberately concealing their whereabouts," I expect they include a number of people of fugitive temperament who manage to conceal their whereabouts even from the police.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PRECEPT
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual average cost to each family residing in the Metropolitan area of the Metropolitan Police precept of 1s. 9¼d.
  Mr. Ede: Current statistics do not give reliable figures as to the number of families in the Metropolitan Police District but on the basis of the Registrar-General's estimate that the population of the area is 8¼ million the rate represents an annual cost of 19s. 6d. a head.
  Mr. Piratin: Is the Home Secretary aware that I have had a Question down to the Ministry of Health concerning other big cities in the country, and that I already have some information which shows that the rate in other towns is much less than it is in London? Can he also say what benefits the people of London get, in view of the protection given by the police force to a man like Mosley as against that which is given in other parts of the country?
  Mr. Ede: Each police force has to be considered on the merits of the area. After all, the capital city of a country presents peculiar difficulties for its police force. No protection, other than that afforded to the ordinary citizen, is given to the person named by the hon. Member.
  Mr. C. Poole: Does not that show how much more decent we people in the Provinces are?
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenses are now incurred by the Metropolitan police in respect of imperial and national services; and by how much these expenses have increased since 1911.
  Mr. Ede: As a result of increases in police pay and allowances, and overhead administrative costs, there has undoubtedly been since 1911 a rise in the cost of the national and imperial services rendered by the Metropolitan police, but owing to changes which have occurred over the years in police methods and organisation I cannot at present undertake to make a precise comparison of the costs of these services in 1911 and now. I have been supplied by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District with certain figures which I am examining with a view to determining what items of expenditure can properly be attributed to national and imperial services.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that reply mean that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider some increase in the amount of the present contribution from the Exchequer, because the present arrangement is based upon 40-year-old conditions which are no longer relevant?
  Mr. Ede: The reply means that I am examining these figures to see whether they represent a fair payment for the services rendered.
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Metropolitan police authorities notified municipal authorities in London of the increased precept for police expenses for 1949–50.
  Mr. Ede: On 14th February, 1949, Sir.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend examine the constitutional
  2268
  propriety of announcing this increased precept to the local authorities more than three weeks before the estimates on which that precept is based were available to hon. Members of this House? Is it not at least desirable that this House should approve any impost for which the Government are responsible and accountable before taxation is announced or imposed?
  Mr. Ede: I think it is desirable that the rating authorities who have to levy the rate should have the information at as early a date as possible. I think that, quite properly, it was sent out on St. Valentine's Day.

  POLICE INQUIRIES, WANDSWORTH
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the police are making inquiries from relatives and tradesmen about a Wandsworth resident, of whom he has received information.
  Mr. Ede: As I have already informed the hon. Member, these inquiries were properly made in the ordinary course of police duty.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say what exactly are the charges against this young ex-Service man and what crime he has committed? Can he say why the police are pursuing him both at home and in his occupation?
  Mr. Ede: I do not think that is a fair comment on the action of the police. This man has, in fact, been bound over on one occasion.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Home Secretary say, before hon. Members without information on the matter applaud him, what exactly was the charge against this young man for which he was bound over and why the police are still pursuing him?
  Mr. Ede: He was bound over for an offence under the Public Order Act, 1936.

  COUNTY CONSTITUENCIES (POLLING STATIONS)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what step he is taking to ensure that every county

  2269
  constituency is so divided that there shall be a separate polling place for every parish; and what representations he has received from local authorities under Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948.
  Mr. Ede: I issued a circular in October drawing the attention of county councils to Section 7, and the responsibility for giving effect to its requirements in county constituencies rests on them. I have received no representation under the Section from any local authority.
  Mr. Turton: In view of the pledge which the Minister himself gave that there would be a separate polling station in every parish, will be at an early date cause a review to be made of the complaints made by local authorities in regard to the carrying out of his pledge?
  Mr. Ede: I have given instructions in the matter. I can say to the House that, taking rural counties as a whole, there has already been a substantial increase in the number of polling stations. For example, in Buckinghamshire there are an additional 65, in Nottinghamshire an additional 84, and in Warwickshire an additional 80. I am keeping the subject under review, for I regard this matter as an essential part of the reforms enacted in the Representation of the People Act.
  Mr. Turton: Will the Home Secretary say whether those increases ensure a separate polling station in every rural parish?
  Mr. Ede: No, I would not say that they go as far as that, but at any rate they are a substantial improvement on what existed in the past. If they are not sufficient, additional polling stations will be provided.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give his word that there would be a separate polling station in every parish, except in exceptional circumstances?
  Mr. Ede: Yes, I did and I intend to see that it is carried out. The figures I gave were only a few from a list which I have here, and which indicates that I have met with a very considerable measure of success.
  Mr. Nicholson: What remedy has an elector if there is not a polling station provided in his parish?
  Mr. Ede: The local authority in each area—that includes a parish council or parish meeting—can make a representation to me. Any 30 electors can also make a representation to me.

  PUBLIC MEETING, RIDLEY ROAD (POLICE REPORT)
  Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from police officers who attended a meeting at Ridley Road on the 6th March, 1949; and what action he proposes to take in respect of the speech delivered on that occasion by a Mr. Victor Burgess.
  Mr. Ede: I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police on this meeting, which had a maximum attendance of 25 persons. I am not a prosecuting authority and do not initiate criminal proceedings, but I have sent the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Did this man incite his audience against any part of the population by describing them as lower than vermin?
  Mr. Ede: In view of the fact that these papers are before the Director of Public Prosecutions it would be inadvisable for me to comment on any statement that was made at the meeting.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (INQUIRY)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of EARL WINTERTON:
  39. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the terms of reference of the committee to inquire into practices of alleged cruelty to animals.
  Earl Winterton: In asking this question I wish to call attention to a custom and practice of this House. The Question deals with a subject on which an answer was given by the Lord President of the Council in the first instance. Naturally, I put the Question down to the Lord President of the Council, as he answered a Question on the same subject in the first instance. Yesterday I received a

  2271
  letter from a gentleman calling himself the Private Secretary to the Lord President of the Council, saying, in the third person, that the Question had been transferred to the Home Secretary. I suggest that where a question has already been answered on the subject by a Minister, it is very undesirable in general to transfer the matter to another Minister.
  Mr. Ede: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the mystery surrounding this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman explain why the matter was originally handled by the Lord President of the Council and has now been handed over to him?
  Mr. Ede: There is no mystery about it. This is a Question which would be normally answered by me. Last week it arose out of the Business answers that my right hon. Friend gave in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Lipson: In considering this matter will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advisability of not extending the scope of the inquiry to all animals but of confining it to wild animals? Otherwise, the inquiry will take too long.
  Mr. Ede: The question asked last week arose out of specific matters. I will en-deavour to see that the terms of reference are so framed that a reasonably speedy result can be achieved.
  Mr. Dumpleton: When considering the terms of reference, will my right hon. Friend take note of my Amendment on the Order Paper to the Motion on "Cruelty to Wild Animals?"
  ["including the desirability of establishing a National Wild Life Trust to be responsible for the guardianship of wild animals and birds, with powers to regulate the control of their numbers by approved methods."]
  Mr. Ede: Note has been taken of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and it will be considered when the terms of reference are being drafted.
  Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very considerable difference of opinion, which is by no means on party lines, on this
  2272
  matter, and that many of us believe that the terms of reference should be much wider than has been indicated? Will the right hon. Gentleman give full consideration to this question upon which, as I said, there is no division on party lines?
  Mr. Ede: I am very anxious to avoid the usual cliche "every relevant factor will be taken into consideration," but the spirit of that well-known Parliamentary statement will be borne in mind.

  PRECAST CONCRETE UNITS (CLAIM)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the claim by Mr. J. C. S. Hunt of Newport, Monmouthshire, for £32,652 in connection with the manufacture and supply to local authorities of precast concrete units for the waterproofing of Anderson shelters during the late war; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have fully investigated this case and I am satisfied that there are no grounds for his claim against my Department.
  Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that Mr. Hunt is practically bankrupt and has very little chance of contesting his case in the courts, will my right hon. Friend permit an independent impartial investigation, especially in view of the very large sum involved?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I do not think there is any justification for this matter being further considered.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Voluntary Hospitals (Finance)
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Health what were the total liabilities of the voluntary hospitals other than teaching hospitals; what was the total amount of cash in hand and standing to their credit at the banks; what was the approximate total value of their tangible assets, including land, buildings, stores and equipment on 5th July, 1948; and what was the total value of the Hospital Endowments Fund at the vesting date.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the
    OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Question asks for only four totals and that the Question was put down to him in answer to a challenge which he made to me in the course of a recent Debate? He should not issue such challenges if he intends to answer them in this way.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member should look at the answer before he comes to conclusions.
    Following is the reply:
    The total liabilities of transferred voluntary hospitals are estimated at £14,400,000, of which £4,700,000 relates to teaching hospitals. Cash in hand and at the banks of the non-teaching voluntary hospitals was approximately £2,500,000: in the case of the teaching hospitals cash and bank credits passed directly to the new Boards of Governors as part of their endowments and figures are not at present available. The tangible assets of transferred hospitals have not been valued nor do I consider the labour involved in carrying out a valuation would be justified. It is not yet possible to make a complete estimate of the value of the assets of the Hospital Endowments Fund but it will not be less than £18 million net.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Health what grants in aid were paid to the voluntary hospitals other than teaching hospitals between the passing of the National Health Service Act and 5th July 1948.
    Mr. Bevan: During the period in question grants totalling £15,016,144 were made to 224 hospitals, of which £6,832,298 related to teaching hospitals.

    WATER SUPPLY, SPROXTON
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the grave shortage of water at Sproxton, near Helmsley; and what steps he is taking to permit the local authorities to provide a temporary scheme.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The District Council have submitted proposals for
    2274
    temporary works and have been asked for reports on recent analyses of the water. If these are satisfactory, I will do what I can to expedite the work.
    Mr. Turton: Can the Minister expedite the matter by doing away with the necessity for a public inquiry and thus enable the local authority to get straight on with the matter before the summer?
    Mr. Bevan: I will consider whether I have the statutory right to do so.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION CARDS
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health what services National Registration cards render in connection with food and clothes rationing; what persons have the right to demand production of them; and in what circumstances.
    Mr. Bevan: The National Registration Identity Cards provide the necessary evidence of identity in connection with the issue of food ration documents. The persons authorised to demand production of an identity card are—

    (a) A National Registration officer;

    (b) A police officer in uniform;

    (c) A member of the Armed Forces in uniform on duty if he has reason to suspect that the person concerned is a deserter or absentee from the Forces or an escaped prisoner of war.

    When a card is asked for two days' grace is allowed in which to produce the card, in (b) and (c) at a police station, in (a) at the office of the National Registration officer making the request.
    Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend also say what other departments or individuals have the right to demand the production of identity cards?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not think there are any others. I think I have exhausted the list of persons who are entitled to ask for it. As the House will remember, from time to time I have relaxed the regulations in this matter in order to impose as small a burden as possible on the ordinary citizen.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain branches of the National Health Service the production of identity cards is demanded, as in the case of the dentists?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that it is for identification purposes. In the case of dentists, it is the identity number which is demanded.

    INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY (WORKING GROUPS)
    Mr. Errollasked the Lord President of the Council if he will publish separate details of each of the working groups formed under the Committee on Industrial Productivity; and what alterations have been made to the numbers of panels and their individual membership.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The first annual report of the Committee on Industrial Productivity which will shortly be published, will record changes in the membership of the Committee and its four panels since they were established. With regard to the working groups, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his Question on the same subject of 7th June, 1948.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the annual report will be published, and can he given an assurance that there is no danger of the Committee being superannuated by the Anglo-American Productivity Council?
    Mr. Morrison: On the last point, I see no danger of that. With regard to the date of the publication of the report, I hope it will be in the early part of next month.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to set up a working committee into the productivity of the War Office?
    Mr. Morrison: If ever I set up such a working committee, I will consider my hon. Friend as a member of it.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Statistics
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Labour what were the average numbers of registered unemployed during the three and a half years after the first and after the second world war.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Comparable figures are not available for any year before 1921. The average number of insured persons unemployed in Great Britain in 1921 was 1,837,000 and for the three and a half years ending December, 1948, the average was 352,000.
    Mr. Reid: In view of the unprecedented dislocation of trade and industry which was caused by the last war, and the unprecedented shortages of food and raw materials, how does my right hon. Friend explain the remarkable contrast between this period and the corresponding period after the first world war?
    Mr. Keeling: Can we also have the equally relevant comparison with the third Matabele war?

    Defence Regulations (Orders)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour if he will identify the orders made under Regulations 58A and 58AA of the Defence (General) Regulations, which he proposes to revoke and those which he proposes to consolidate, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have this matter under consideration and hope to make a statement about this shortly.
    Sir J. Mellor: Last week in the Debate on the Adjournment the Parliamentary Secretary said that nine of these orders would be revoked. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can say which they are.
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not interpret that as being what my right hon. Friend said on the Adjournment. I think it can bear another interpretation. The fact is that these orders are under examination but some of them have to be kept in force because certain parts of them have to be used for other purposes. I cannot add to the fact that they are under consideration and that I will make a statement later.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the orders which have fallen into disuse would be revoked? Surely, the right on. Gentleman can say which they are.
    Mr. Isaacs: I will say which they are when I am ready to do so.

    Association Footballers (Committee)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the conference held at the Ministry on the relations between the Football Association, the Players Union and the Football League; and what steps have been taken to establish amicable relations between all interests engaged in association football.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I have met the parties and I am glad to say that in the discussions that followed complete agreement was reached as to the machinery and procedure for dealing with all problems affecting the welfare of the players. A draft constitution for a Standing Joint Committee has already been sent to the parties, and this will be considered at an early meeting between them. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratification at the friendly relationships that manifested themselves during, the discussion.
    Miss Herbison: Are these arrangements applicable to Scotland? If not, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that they will be?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that I do not understand the ramifications of the game well enough to know whether these organisations affect Scotland.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Retired Senior Officials (Pensions)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the proposed increases in the salaries of higher civil servants, he is prepared to consider the question of increasing the pensions of retired senior civil servants to meet the increase in the cost of living.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir. I can hold out no hope of amending the two Pensions (Increase) Acts, passed in 1944 and 1947.
    Colonel Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pensions of many men who have held high positions in the Civil Service are today, owing to the rise in the cost of living, quite inadequate to meet their essential needs and family expenditure?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: One cannot deal with this matter in isolation. We cannot take senior civil servants and deal with them alone.

    Higher Grades (Pay)
    Mr. I. J. Pitmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion the increase of pay of £180,000 per annum to higher civil servants recommended by the Chorley Committee bears to the general increase per annum in wages which has in fact been paid since the Chorley Committee reported; what is such increase in wages; and whether, in view of the small amount now recommended both proportionately and absolutely, he will accelerate the award and make it retrospective to the date of the report of the Chorley Committee.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Between September, 1948, the date of the Chorley Report, and February, 1949, the last date for which figures are available, 3,517,000 workers received increases in full-time wages estimated to amount to about £772,000 per week. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the proportionate figure requested by the hon. Member. The details of the method of the gradual introduction of the new scales—which has been accepted in principle by the representatives of the staff concerned—are at present being discussed with them and meanwhile I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) on 17th February.
    Mr. Pitman: If the increase for these important and loyal servants of the House is refused during a period of inflation, will there not be a greater danger that they will not receive it during a period of disinflation and that, therefore, they will not get it at all? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these people will get the increase recommended by the Chorley Committee, which was set up by the Government; and, if so, when?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think my right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that as and when it is possible to give these increases they will be given. I am sure that every hon. Member, on this side at any rate, realises that when my right hon. and learned Friend makes a promise he means to implement it.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Securities (Transfer Deeds)
    Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make known the result of his active consideration as to whether stock and share brokers who are licensed dealers in securities, registered with the Board of Trade, may stamp and sign declarations as required by Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1939, on the back of transfer deeds.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Holders of principal's licences granted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, and exempted dealers in securities under Section 15 of that Act, have been empowered to stamp and sign the declarations on the back of transfer deeds since 1st October, 1947, when the Exchange Control Act, 1947, came into force.

    Special Contribution
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide in the next Finance Bill for every Government Department collecting money from the public to recover interest between the date when the charge is incurred and the date when the account is rendered.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Financial Secretary realise that to confine P.A.Y.W.B.—Pay as You Wait for the Bill—to the small number of persons who pay the Special Contribution or Death Duties looks very much like one law for the comparatively rich and another law for the comparatively poor?
    Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is just for the Government to demand interest on any payment before the taxpayer knows what that amount is?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was all explained when the Finance Act was passed; if discount is allowed on one side, it is fair that interest should be charged on the other.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the assessments have gone out, and if not, when he expects them to be completed?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Owing to the shortage of staff, I am sorry to say that all the assessments have not yet gone out; but the Inland Revenue is doing its best and is making great headway.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not disgraceful that assessments of a tax on which interest has to be paid after 1st January should not have gone out by the middle of March, and that the right hon. Gentleman can give no information as to when all the assessments will have gone out?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister say if all the cheques received already have been deposited with the banks?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations provide for interest to be paid on unpaid interest on the Special Contribution.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: That's decent.

    London Hotels (Government Reservations)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount paid to London hotels for room reservations by Government Funds during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: £8,400 has been paid from the Government Hospitality Fund for rooms for Government guests during the 12 months to the end of February, 1949.
    Mr. Shepherd: How does the Financial Secretary justify this reservation money when the Chancellor told us the other day that less than 50 per cent. of Park Street had been occupied during the last 12 months?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Member wants an answer and will put a Question down, I will give him an answer in due course. I should have thought, however, that the reply is quite obvious; it has been made more than once from this Box. It has never been denied that there are off months, both for the hotels and for 2, Park Street. Where Park Street could be used, it has been used.
    Mr. Shepherd: But is it not a fact that the answer of the Chancellor indicated that the average per week was slightly over 50 per cent. sometimes and slightly below at others, and is there any justification, when the Government have all this vacant accommodation, for paying reservation money to London hotels for rooms which they do not use?
    Captain Crookshank: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we shall be discussing this Vote later on today, when I hope he will come supplied with the necessary information?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be a good thing, too, Mr. Speaker, if Members who put down Questions knew the facts before they put them.
    Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Shall we be in order in future, first knowing the facts, in putting down a Question to ask what they are? I had understood up to now that the point of putting a Question to a Minister was to ascertain the facts although, of course, we are beginning to understand that no longer applies.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not also the case that it has always been assumed in this House that when a Member puts down a Question to a Minister on the Order Paper he takes responsibility for any facts stated in that Question?
    Mr. Shepherd: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I made no statement at all in my Question. I merely and properly asked for information, and what really seems to be the case is that Ministers ought to come to that Box prepared and knowing the answer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was referring to a supplementary put by the hon. Member who made assertions, and on those assertions based questions.

    Tourist Travel (Foreign Currency)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now say what basic allowance of foreign currencies will be allowed to British tourists for the year commencing 1st May, 1949.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that it has been found possible to
    2282
    make some relaxation in the arrangements for tourist travel for the 12 months beginning on 1st May. For this period the foreign currency allowance will be the equivalent of £50 for adults and £35 for children under 15 years of age.
    The currency allowance will be available for tourist travel in the following countries—Austria, Belgium, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands). France. Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands. Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. The possibility of adding one or two countries to this list is still under consideration.
    In the case of Switzerland. total expenditure on tourist travel will be limited to about £4.5 million for the 12 months.
    Expenditure in Belgium and Luxembourg will be limited to£1.1 million for the 12 months and, in order to enable the maximum number of people to visit those countries, the Belgian and Luxembourg authorities have decided to limit the amount which individuals may spend in the two countries to £35 for adults and £25 for children under 15.
    The detailed arrangements for travel to Switzerland, Belgium and Luxembourg will be announced shortly.
    The car allowance formerly available to tourists will also be restored. An extra allowance of currency equivalent to a maximum of £10 per car will be allowed to private motorists to enable them to travel to their destination by car instead of by train. This is an alternative to the present arrangement, which will of course continue, whereby a traveller is permitted to pay his return fare in sterling outside the basic travel allowance.
    I should emphasise that this new travel allowance does not come into operation until 1st May next, so that anyone desiring to go abroad before that date can only do so on the basis of their existing travel allowance.
    Sir Ian Fraser: In the case of those countries where there is a limitation, such as Switzerland, etc.. will the sum of money available be split into four parts so that it can be drawn upon each quarter? Otherwise it might all go in the first week or two.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Arrangements will have to be made by the authorisation offices which will be set up—in the case of Switzerland one exists already. Points like that will be settled by the authorisation offices before applications are made.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to widen the list of countries he has mentioned, if possible to include Yugoslavia.
    Hon. Members: And Russia.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We would be pleased to be able to include Yugoslavia and consideration is being given to that matter now.
    Colonel Dower: Is there any alteration in the amount of money that persons are allowed to take on them when they leave this country?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Oh, dear, no. They are allowed to take in currency notes £5 which must not be spent except on a British ship or on a British aeroplane. This sum is allowed in order that, when the traveller returns to this country, he should not he without English money in his pocket.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Where the numbers are limited, will my right hon. Friend consider giving priority to medical cases that are no approved by the special committee that has been set up?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That, again, is not for us. Within the global limits set, it will be for the country concerned, through its authorised agency here, to decide who shall or shall not receive currency.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it the case that the number of persons who may go to Switzerland in the next currency year is half that of those who were permitted to go last year; and does that cut in the number of personnel allowed to go, apply to any other country?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry, but I do not know how many went to Switzerland last year.
    Mr. Harrison: Taking into consideration the global limits of expenditure on this form of travel, why has my right hon. Friend increased the personal allowance and thereby limited the number of people who can take part in this enjoyable foreign travel?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We do not limit the number, except in the case of Belgium and Switzerland, where special considerations apply, and they—not we—are limiting the amount.
    Mr. H. Strauss: How does the "global limit" differ from the "limit"?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make a statement upon the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mi. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 21st March—Supply (9th allotted Day): Report stage of the Navy, Air and Army Estimates; the Diplomatic and Consular Establishments Supplementary Estimate; and of any Civil Supplementary Estimates announced for consideration today but not debated before 9.30 p.m.
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.
Tuesday, 22nd March—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Committee stage of the Agricultural Marketing (Money) (No. 2) Resolution;
Committee and remaining stages of the Consular Conventions Bill, and the Lands Tribunal Bill.
Wednesday, 23rd March— Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; Debate on Germany and Eastern Europe.
Thursday, 24th March—Committee and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; Debate on Manpower;
Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which is usually a formal stage.
Friday, 25th March—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
I have to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will have an important statement to make on the North Atlantic Pact at about 4 o'clock tomorrow, Friday. I realise that this is an inconvenient time

2285
for the House, but hon. Members will understand that we have had to synchronise our arrangements with those of a number of Governments on both sides of the Atlantic. We propose, with the agreement of the House, to suspend the Rule for half an hour up to five o'clock to enable the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère)o raise the subject of which he has given notice, after my right hon. Friend's statement.
It may be convenient if I inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for Easter on Thursday, 14th April, until Tuesday, 26th April.
The House is aware from the Business Statement that the Diplomatic and Consular Establishments Supplementary Estimate is to be considered on Monday next after the Reports of the Service Estimates. This Estimate appears first today and we shall ask the Committee to agree to it formally, so that it may stand in its proper position on Monday.
Today, as the House is aware, we consider Civil Supplementary Estimates for the House of Commons, Government Hospitality, the Board of Trade, Miscellaneous Works Services, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Food.
Warbey:With reference to the announcement of the statement to be made tomorrow afternoon by the Foreign Secretary on the North Atlantic Pact, can my right hon. Friend say what procedure it is, proposed to follow. Will questions only on the statement be permitted or is the Adjournment to be moved in order that a discussion may take place; and if discussion takes place, will there be an opportunity for. Members who may wish to take differing views from those who support the Pact to express those views, or is it proposed that the procedure shall be that outlined in "The Times" last Friday, which was that statements in support of the Pact should be made by leaders of the various political parties?
Morrison:I have no knowledge of what leaders of various political parties may say. It was proposed, as far as the Government is concerned—and subject always to Mr. Speaker—that the Foreign Secretary would make his statement and that there would be supplementary questions in the ordinary way;
2286
and that then we should pass from that subject to the Adjournment and the question to be raised by the hon. Member for Evesham. It will, however, be the case that in due course, and at no distant date, there will be a proper Debate on a Motion to ratify the Treaty.
Major Legge- Bourke: On the subject of Business for next Monday. Did the right hon. Gentleman deliberately put the Air Estimates before the Army Estimates, or are we to have them in the order of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force?
Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right. I thought of that myself when I had got past it. The order should have been the other way round. If, however, the question relates to the order of sequence, I understand there is a wish on the part of the Opposition that the Air Estimates should be taken before those for the Army—in which case I was right.
Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that because there was a Division on Vote A of the Army Estimates, and not on those for the Navy and Air, the Debate on the Army Supplementary Estimate is necessarily more limited than the other two, and that this is the reason for their being taken in that order?
Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Reverting to the business for tomorrow afternoon. I am not quite clear how the thing is based. Are we to take it that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking on the Motion for the Adjournment?
Mr. Morrison: As I understand it, subject to the Chair, it is a statement made in the ordinary way. It is not proposed specially to move the Adjournment to make it debatable. The Debate will come later.
Mr. Silverman: I am afraid I have not made myself very clear. Normally, on Friday at four o'clock the House adjourns, without Question put, subject to the half hour's Adjournment Debate. If the Foreign Secretary is to make a statement at four o'clock tomorrow, that is

2287
outside the time for making statements unless, in fact, he is speaking on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Rule is to be suspended for half an hour in order that the Foreign Secretary may make a statement. Whether that is done on the Adjournment or not has nothing to do with me. If the Government choose to move the Adjournment, they can do so. I cannot move the Adjournment.
Mr. Silverman: I understand that, but if the Foreign Secretary is not speaking on the Adjournment, on what Order will he be speaking?
Mr. Morrison: The Government propose tomorrow to move that the Sitting be suspended until 5 o'clock and the ordinary half hour Adjournment will be taken at 4.30 instead of at 4 o'clock. Therefore, presumably—I say presumably—the Foreign Secretary will make a statement in the ordinary way so far as Order is concerned, just as if he were making a statement at the end of Questions.
Mr. Clement Davies: One difficulty which the Leader of the House seems to have overlooked is that when the House meets, the House will be asked to extend the time from 4 o'clock to 4.30 and then Private Members' Bills will be taken. Suppose someone catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, just before 4 o'clock and continues after 4 o'clock, how can the statement then be made?
Mr. Speaker: I take it that the Motion will be to suspend the Rule for Government Business and Private Members' Business would end.
Mr. Mikardo: As my right hon. Friend has announced a complete set of Business for next week, does that mean that the Debate on the Atlantic Pact must necessarily fall on the following week, or is it possible to have the Business rearranged and have the Debate next week?
Mr. Morrison: The fact that I have announced the Business for the whole of next week, I think, means that the Debate on the Atlantic Pact will not take place next week. A White Paper is to be issued and I think the House would probably wish to have a little time to think about it. Therefore, unless any
2288
such circumstances eventuate which make it desirable, I do not think a Debate on the Atlantic Pact will take place next week.
Captain Crookshank: Is it not a fact that in order to make such a statement as is indicated it will be necessary for the Minister concerned temporarily to move the Adjournment for that purpose?
Mr. Morrison: Tomorrow?
Captain Crookshank: Yes, tomorrow. If that is so, it will be necessary for the Government to put down a Motion on the Paper tomorrow morning to distinguish between the special Adjournment they want for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement, and the normal Adjournment on which my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham is to raise another matter.
Mr. Morrison: There will be a Motion on the Paper tomorrow morning. I think that will solve the doubts in the minds of hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will help the House if I point this out. I think I am quite clear about this. I assume the Government will move the Adjournment at 4 o'clock. That will go on until half past four. Then we get the moment of interruption and the Adjournment secured by the hon. Member for Evesham will take place. Both Adjournments can last half an hour each and no longer.
Mr. Silverman: Is it now clear that the answer to the question I asked, whether the Government will move the Adjournment, is now "Yes," whereas before no one knew? If that is not so, and if there is to be some Motion on the Order Paper tomorrow, I wish to ask how that can be in Order, in view of the Resolution passed at the instance of the Government a little time ago that Fridays are devoted to Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Speaker: That is quite in Order, because the whole of Fridays—the normal hours—are occupied by Private Members' Bills and this matter comes outside that time.
Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend clear up a little further what Mr. Speaker has said and indicate the precise nature of the Motion which will be on the Order Paper tomorrow?
Mr. Morrison: I beg of the House not to worry itself about things which are really not worth worrying about. Private Members' time will not be prejudiced by this change in the situation. It is merely a matter of providing a convenient opportunity, which must be at a certain hour, for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement. I am sure that when my hon. Friends see the Motion on the Order Paper tomorrow all their doubts and unhappiness will be settled.
Mr. Warbey: Now that the position is somewhat clearer, do we understand that we are to have about half an hour during which the Foreign Secretary will make a statement and during which such hon. Members as catch your eye may be able to make their statements? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No, questions."] I think I am right in saying that if we are on the Adjournment, hon. Members will be in Order in making statements and that those statements may be statements of view. Therefore, in half an hour, we shall have a certain limited number of statements of views on the Atlantic Pact. In other words, instead of having the full Debate which every other country, except Portugal I think, has had on the Atlantic Pact, we shall merely have a series of brief statements of views which may be totally unreflective of the views of this House and of the country. May I ask the Lord President of the Council, in view of this position, whether he will consider giving this House, as all other democratic Parliaments in Western Europe have had, an opportunity of debating the policy of this matter before the Pact is signed?
Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, I know as much, or as little, about the practices of other democratic Parliaments in Europe as does my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). We shall follow the customary procedure of the British House of Commons and that is all about it.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister, in view of the Atlantic Pact to which I am very strongly and viciously opposed, if it is the case that after the Foreign Secretary makes his statement arrangements have been made for the Members of this House to sing the "Red Flag"?
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: After the statement is made on the Adjournment,
2290
there is no need for any comments on the statement to be limited in time, and it may well be that the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) may alone catch Mr. Speaker's eye and his comment may be the only comment which goes out to the world. Is there not a danger in that?
Mr. Morrison: No doubt that idea will be taken note of by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: On Business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he proposes to give the House time for consideration of the Motion standing on the Order Paper on the subject of analgesia, in which a great many Members on both sides of the House are interested?
(That in the opinion of this House the Government should take all necessary steps, including the provision of time, in order to facilitate consideration of the Analgesia in Childbirth Bill.)
Mr. Morrison: I have seen this Motion, which certainly has been extensively signed, but the matter was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on the Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill. It was further dealt with by the Minister of Health during the last few days, and I thought his statement fully met the situation. Whilst it has become somewhat hot politics in the Conservative Party—very hot politics on the part of the Conservative Party—I do not think there would be any advantage in a Debate on it.
Mr. Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that it is hot politics when Conservatives put their names to a Motion, but humane feeling when Socialists put down their names to a Motion; and whether the effect of the intervention of the Minister of Health has not been to add names to the Motion, and is not the right hon. Gentleman's intervention trying to do the same thing?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am trying to be quiet and gentle, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that before this large number of names had been put down, the Conservative Party had made politics of this matter at the North St. Pancras by-election. On the eve of the poll, they issued a leaflet which, whilst claiming that the Bill was a non-political Bill, which had the approval of all sides

2291
of the House of Commons. went on to ask the electors to vote for the Conservative candidate because the Socialist Government would not give this Measure support. That was before any dispute took place this week and, no doubt, my hon. Friends will take note of the use to which the Conservative Party have put it.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least make clear that whatever was said, or was not said, at North St. Pancras, I and those associated with me have not made party politics out of this; and will he make it perfectly clear that he is not accusing his own supporters who put their names to the Motion in large numbers and Conservatives of this side of the House, of trying to make party capital, as this is a matter which rises above politics?
Mr. Morrison: I can only say that this leaflet was issued officially on the eve of the poll of the North St. Pancras by election by the Conservative agent, no doubt with the approval of the Conservative Central Office, and I must draw my own deductions.
Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the fact which my right hon. Friend must realise, that hon. Members on this side of the House who are associated with the Bill are not trying to make party politics out of it, and since he must also realise that practically no names of hon. Members on this side of the House have been withdrawn from this Motion since yesterday or the day before, will be consider the possibility of answering the great demand which exists for time to be given for consideration of this Motion?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think that I can usefully add to what the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend have said. As to the political inferences on this side of the House, I must leave my hon. Friend to draw deductions from what I have reported to the House.
Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman "contract out" a little from what the Minister of Health said in this House?
Mr. S. Silverman: May I refer to another question about party politics which is perhaps not less important than the one to which reference has just been
2292
made? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is really anything improper or unusual in the House of Commons being given an opportunity to discuss an important new venture in the field of international relations before the Government commit themselves to signing; and whether, if that has been done in every other country which is concerned in this matter there would be any harm done—whether on the contrary a great deal of good would not be done—if the matter were ventilated before the signature of the Pact?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure exactly on what date signatures will actually be appended, but I must uphold what I think is proper, traditional British Parliamentary practice, that is, that the Government take their responsibility in entering into a treaty and the House of Commons has its perfectly free responsibility to approve or not to approve of what the Government have done.

MEAT RATION (REDUCTION)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I must apologise to the House for my right hon. Friend's absence through illness.
I regret to have to announce that it will be necessary to reduce the meat ration from 27th March onwards to a level of 10d. a week of which 8d. worth will be carcase meat and the rest canned corned meat. This follows the action taken two months ago to reduce with effect from 23rd January the carcase meat ration from 1s. a week to 10d. a week, 2d. worth of canned corned meat being given to make up the 1s. ration. At the time a warning was given that unless meat shipments from the Argentine improved there would be no alternative but to cut the ration further.
The shipments have not improved, and the further reduction has become inevitable. The Andes Agreement signed in February, 1948, provided that the Argentine would supply 400,000 tons of frozen meat in the following twelve months. But during the last four months of 1948 we received only 51,500 tons of meat from the Argentine as against 130,000 tons which we had expected to get. In view of this position His Majesty's Ambassador

2293
was instructed to bring pressure on the Argentine Government at the highest level to speed up shipments. By then it was physically impossible for the balance to be shipped in time to fulfil the Agreement, but we received an assurance that 25,000 tons would be shipped in January, 30,000 tons in February and 30,000 tons in March. We actually received 27,300 tons in January, 19,000 tons in February and we expect to get only 23,000 tons in March. When the Andes year ended in February 108,000 tons (or over a quarter of the carcase meat in the Agreement) remained unshipped.
Because of the shortfall in supplies during tile latter part of 1948 we had to draw heavily on stocks to maintain the 1s. ration: we ended the year with 50,000 tons less meat in store than a year ago. In the first four months of the year we shall get 65,000 tons less meat from overseas than in the same period in 1948, and this at a time when home killed supplies are at a minimum. Our stocks are no longer adequate to make good this deficit even on the basis of a 10d. and not 1s. carcase ration: in fact if we tried to maintain the present ration even for a very short period our stocks would almost immediately fall below the minimum level at which nation wide distribution can be maintained and the ration honoured.
The canned corn meat position is broadly similar to that of carcase meat. The supplies which we received during 1948 were below expectations: we have run down our stocks substantially in order to keep up the ration, so that it is not possible to contemplate any increase of the present release of 2d. a week: we hope to secure increased supplies in 1949, but this also will depend on the outcome of Argentine negotiations.
Naturally the failure to send us by the due date the supplies contracted for under the Andes Agreement is a matter of great concern and disappointment to His Majesty's Government. As the House knows, negotiations are in progress with the Argentine Government at the present time for a fresh agreement on meat, and the future of the ration during the next year or so must inevitably depend upon the outcome of these negotiations. We have made it clear however that notwithstanding the serious consequences of a continued shortfall in supplies from
2294
the Argentine we are not prepared to pay unreasonable prices, to submit to unreasonable conditions of sale, or to pay dollars.
The general background is, of course, that there continues to be a world shortage of meat, caused partly by the reduction of herds due to the war and partly to the increased world demand arising from the growth of population and the improvement in living standards. In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the difficulties which we have been experiencing with the Argentine, we must clearly press on with the expansion of supplies from the United Kingdom itself under the Government's agricultural programme and with the longer-term development of additional sources of supply from overseas.
Captain Crookshank: While I am quite sure that the whole country will share the concern and disappointment of His Majesty s Government in this matter, may I ask, first, whether the right hon. Lady can say anything about the present negotiations with the Argentine? Secondly, can she say anything about the financial position with regard to the Andes Agreement? If my recollection serves me aright, we paid an enormous amount of money in advance of the date of receiving any meat. Have we paid up all that we undertook to pay without, as the right hon. Lady has just said, receiving something like a quarter of the contract?
Dr. Summerskill: The answer is that what we want from the Argentine is the meat and not the money. There was a penalty clause, under which it would be possible for the Argentine Government, as they offered, to repay us in sterling. We have made it quite clear that we should like shipments to continue. They are coming in gradually and there is still about a quarter to come.
Captain Crookshank: Does it mean that we have actually paid the Argentine in anticipation of the receipt of supplies?
Dr. Summerskill: We have only paid for the meat which has come in.
Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the home production of beef could be greatly stepped up quite quickly by a vigorous emergency policy, and will

2295
she consult with the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to see that every possible step is now taken to increase beef production in this country?
Dr. Summerskill: Yes, but the hon. Member must remember that it takes four years to produce the animal from the time of conception to the time when it is on the plate.
Mr. Royle: In view of the seriousness of my right hon. Friend's announcement, will she see that rationed meat which will now be used, will be of good quality and that the poor quality meat will be turned into manufactured meat, where it will be much more economical? Might I further ask her in view of the question put by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) whether it would not now be a good plan to concentrate on the feeding of pigs with the feedingstuffs which are available during the next few months?
Dr. Summerskill: We try our best, as my hon. Friend knows, to distribute the meat in the best possible way. Of course we are encouraging the feeding of pigs.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it not a fact that we have advanced to the Argentine the whole purchase price on the signing of the Andes Agreement Act, a sum of just over £100 million? May I ask whether the right hon. Lady would like to amend what she said? May I further ask what steps she has taken to get further consignments of meat from other markets, particularly European markets?
Dr. Summerskill: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the details of the first question which he put to me do concern my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But the right hon. Lady made a statement.
Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, and I stand by that statement. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me another question about the initial arrangements, and I think that it does concern the Chancellor. We are making every effort to get food from other countries. We are trying to get food from Europe, but so far as I can see the only country
2296
which proves promising at present is France. At the moment negotiations have been held up, because the veterinary surgeons wish to discuss questions of foot-and-mouth disease, and so on, with the French authorities.
Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the people of this country are solidly behind the Government in their policy of not being blackmailed by the Argentine?
Mr. Turton: In view of this evidence of the failure of State trading in regard to meat, will the Government now relax the regulations to enable private enterprise to repair the failure of the Minister to buy meat in the markets of the world?
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. Is he not aware that the Argentine Government operates bulk selling? Does not he know that all the agricultural commodities in the Argentine go through the Argentine Institute for the Promotion of Trade?
Mr. Crawley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the case that there is surplus barley in the country and that the Minister of Agriculture has not been willing to issue this barley for pig food, because he is afraid he might not have enough to last to the end of the year if there was a bad harvest? In view of this serious situation, will she press the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider that decision, and issue some of the surplus barley now?
Dr. Summerskill: That is a question for my right hon. Friend.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: is not this very serious statement—which has been deliberately retarded until three hours after the declaration of the Sowerby poll—very clear evidence of the total failure of the Government trading policy in meat?
Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend see that the country is made aware of the sneering and malicious approval with which the Opposition have greeted this reduction?
Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Parliamentary Secretary now inform the House what are the stocks of corned beef in this country? The last time I asked the right hon. Lady she said it was not in

2297
the public interest to give this information. It seems to me now to be very much in the public interest.
Dr. Summerskill: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman heard what I said. We are negotiating with the Argentine for a new agreement, and this would not be the moment to disclose our stocks.
Mr. Edelman: In view of the eagerness of the French to export substantial quantities of carcase meat to Britain almost immediately, will my right hon. Friend conclude early arrangements with the Minister of Health, in order to make appropriate arrangements to allow for the conclusion of a settlement for the import of that meat?
Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. We are doing that.
Mr. Edgar Granville: Does the statement of the right hon. Lady mean that there will be no possible chance whatever of an increase in the ration of meat for agricultural workers? I appeal to the right hon. Lady to use her great powers of persuasion and to invite Eva over here for a general talk with her.
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will the Government now re-examine the possibility of getting supplies of meat from the Colonies, which has hitherto been prevented by the fear of the Ministry of Agriculture of introducing disease into this country? Does not this statement, coming nearly four years after the end of the war against Germany, indicate the grossest mishandling of the nation's affairs?
Mr. Cecil Poole: In view of the fact that this country will be economically independent before so very long, will the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend remember the action of a country which plays politics with the food of the people of this country which did fight the Nazis, and not shelter them.
Sir Ian Fraser: On a point of Order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, accept a Motion for the Adjournment, in order to Debate this matter? In support of that, may I submit that we are bandying across the Floor of this House political and party arguments which are shameful in view of the nation's perilous position—[Interruption]—hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must not read into what I have said that I take any particularly strong view about which side is engaging
2298
in those arguments. But it is a fact that we are devoting ourselves to recriminations from one side and the other, and what really matters is the situation so far as the public are concerned. Would you, Mr. Speaker, accept a Motion for the Adjournment so that we may provide ourselves with an opportunity now to Debate this matter in a cool and sensible way?
Mr. Speaker: The only way in which the hon. Member could do that would be to move the Adjournment on this, as a definite matter of urgent public importance.
Sir I. Fraser: May I move such a Motion?
Mr. Speaker: I am bound to say that the meat ration has gone up and down on other occasions. It is not a definite matter suddenly arising. We have been warned some time ahead, and I cannot accept a Motion of that kind.
Captain Crookshank: May I point out that, if we reach it in time, it may be within your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this matter could be discussed on the Supplementary Estimate of the Ministry of Food which covers the trading accounts of this year, including meat among other subjects. It may be possible to do that. At any rate we shall try, and so I give the right hon. Lady warning, in order that she shall not come unprepared.
Mr. Speaker: I was not quite sure what Estimates were down, but it could be taken there, I imagine, subject, of course, to the wish of the Committee. Therefore that does afford an opportunity to debate the matter. I think we had better get on. We have another matter to deal with.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that when my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised his point of Order, you had already called upon me to put a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lonsdale raised a point of Order. I had not called him.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood that you had called me to put a supplementary question when my hon. Friend raised his point of Order. As the right

2299
hon. Lady has announced a cut in the domestic ration, can she say whether proportionate adjustments are being made in the allocations to catering establishments or is the whole of the deficit to be carried by the domestic consumer?
Dr. Summerskill: It will be reflected in all catering establishments.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Scholefield Allen: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity of drawing your attention, and the attention of the House, to a report published in the "Daily Dispatch," dated 16th March, 1949. I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, that this report constitutes a breach of Privilege. With your permission I shall read the report of which I complain. It is not very long. It is headed, "Recorder Criticised":
"Mr. S. Scholefield Allen, K.C., Socialist M.P. for Crewe and Recorder of Blackburn, intervened to secure the release on licence from an approved school of a 12-year-old boy, the magistrates at Crewe Juvenile Court were told yesterday. Mr. B. W. Furber, the chairman, said Mr. Allen's conduct was ' highly improper.' The boy and his 11-year-old brother admitted breaking into a lock-up shop and an office, and to stealing bicycles and cash."
Mr. John Foster: On a point of Order. I think "conduct" is wrong, unless there are two editions. I think the word should be "action."
Mr. Scholefield Allen: It is "action." The report continued:
"Mr. Furber said that but for Mr. Allen's action—taken, it was said, after the boy's mother had written to him—the boy would still have been under proper care and probably his brother would not have been before the court that day. The two other magistrates agreed."
Mr. Speaker, I understand it to be the duty of a Member of this honourable House to make representations to the Executive on behalf of his constituents. This attack upon me by Mr. Furber I venture to say is wholly unjustified.
On 26th May, 1948, I received a letter from a constituent asking me to make representations on behalf of a widow whose child was then in an approved school. Four years previously the child, then aged eight, had got into trouble whilst the child's mother was a widow, his father having been killed in Singapore. The child having been in the approved school for four years, the widow asked
2300
that he might be released, pointing out that in the opinion of the master of the school the child's conduct was good. I forwarded that letter to the Home Secretary and on 16th June, 1948, the Under-Secretary of State replied that the boy's conduct was disappointing and they were not prepared to release him. There the matter rested so far as I was concerned. I was entirely unsuccessful in any representation or intervention that I made.
Mr. Speaker, on those facts this extremely damaging and totally unjustified attack has been made on me as a Member of this House. I merely performed my duty. To say of a Member of this honourable House that his conduct was highly improper, is calculated to do widespread harm. This paper circulates all over Lancashire and Cheshire. In Lancashire, I act as Recorder, and in Cheshire, I am a Member of Parliament. Before I continue with the later facts, the House will be aware that boys who are sent to an approved school are not sentenced for a specific length of time—
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Member but, after all, I do not want to judge the case. I only want to know whether there is a prima facie case. That is all.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: So far as the facts are concerned, six months later this boy was released. He was not released as a result of my intervention, and I am informed by the Home Office that he was not released even on their representation, but the release was by the managers of the school entirely on their own authority Those are the full facts. [Interruption.] I have been attacked, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is only Tory bad manners.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: My conduct has been called "highly improper." Surely, I can defend myself in this House. On those facts I am accused, with widespread publicity, of "highly improper" conduct.
It does not end there. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the magistrate went on to say that, but for my action, this boy would not have got into trouble again, nor would his younger brother have got into crime—and that is emphasised as a result of my intervention. In those circumstances, Sir,

2301
I ask for your Ruling whether the matter to which I have called your attention does not constitute a breach of the Privilege of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I have carefully considered whether or not I should rule that the hon. and learned Member has established a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. My conclusion is that, whether or not the words are technically defamatory, the implication cast upon the hon. and learned Member is not sufficiently grave to warrant giving to this matter precedence over the Business of the day. It is clear that the chairman of the juvenile court was not fully informed of the true facts of the case, and the action in releasing the boy was taken by the Home Secretary. No criticism can possibly be attached to the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) for his part in the matter.
Mr. S. Silverman: Might I make a submission to you, Sir, on that Ruling? It would appear, on listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this magistrate had accused the hon. and learned Member of misusing his holding of judicial office in order to secure a result as a Member of this House, that he would not otherwise have been able to secure. If that is so, is there not a degree of gravity in such an accusation?
Mr. Speaker: A Member of Parliament is not exempt from criticism. I have to look at it from the point of view, "Is it going to interfere with the execution of his proper duties?" I cannot think that the mere statement by a magistrate in court, which was misinformed, would really deter the hon. and learned Member from performing his duties as a Member of Parliament.
Earl Winterton: May I call your attention especially to the fact that I think it has been held by your predecessors that it would be very embarrassing to the Committee of Privileges that Mr. Speaker be asked to give his reasons, beyond his original statement that he rules that there is no prima facie case? Might I respectfully submit that there should be no further discussion on the subject?
Mr. Speaker: I quite agree. I have not to justify my Ruling. I have given a Ruling and there is must stand.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In view of the
2302
statements that have been made, may I be allowed to say that this boy was not released by my order or on any representations from my Department? As a matter of fact, when the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) wrote to the Under-Secretary, we came to the conclusion that the boy had not sufficiently profited by the training in the school to ask that his release should be considered. Some five or six months later the managers of the school, of their own volition, without consulting the Home Office, released the boy on licence. I think that it should be made clear that the responsibility for his release rests on the managers and on no one else.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: May I then accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and having ventilated this matter, express the hope that the corrected statements will be read by my constituents and others and that good will result?

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  "to make provision for National Parks and the establishment of a National Parks Commission; to confer on the Nature Conservancy and local authorities powers for the establishment and maintenance of nature reserves; to make further provision for the recording, creation, maintenance and improvement of public paths and for securing access to open country, and to amend the law relating to rights of way; to confer further powers for preserving and enhancing natural beauty; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid," presented by Mr. Silkin; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. King; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means 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

  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CLASS II

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.
    Resolved:
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,801,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

CLASS I

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid of the Kitchen Committee."
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the Debate on this Estimate was carried on a fortnight ago, there was a somewhat regrettable display of heat. I hope that those hon. Members who serve this House on the Kitchen Committee will appreciate that those of us who have some doubts about this Estimate have not the faintest intention of attacking them. But I would point out to them that, when this House is discussing a Vote which directly affects its own comfort and amenities, it is surely an occasion upon which there is a duty on hon. Members to be particularly vigilant in discussing and watching these items. It is in that spirit that I ask one or two hon. Members opposite to understand why these criticisms are being made.
  There was, in particular, during that Debate a statement by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee),
  2304
  who fills the position of Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, which really did carry the case too far. The hon. Gentleman, who I regret to see is not now in his place, said:
  "Is it any less necessary that they—"
  by which the hon. Gentleman means hon. Members of the House—
  "—should be fed than they should be handed a slip of paper by a messenger to tell them that somebody is waiting for them outside; or is it any less necessary than that they should be reported—and very well reported—by the Official Reporters in the Gallery? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 2162.]
  He was seeking to put the Kitchen Committee in the same position as the other services of the House, which are, in my view quite properly, provided at the expense of the taxpayers, and, therefore, he was putting the case for the Supplementary Estimate far too high. His argument would have been material had he been arguing, which the hon. Gentleman was not, that the whole cost of feeding hon. Members should be borne by the taxpayer. That argument was not adduced; all that was asked for was a subsidy towards it. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman made the issue far from clear. He then suggested that all those who perform a function in this House, along with the Official Reporters, should be treated on the same basis, and that he should provide meals for everyone. While it is no doubt highly desirable that meals should be obtainable in this building, it cannot be suggested for a moment that the business of Parliament would come to a standstill without such a provision. It would be extremely inconvenient and uncomfortable, but it is quite a different thing to say that such a service is essential. It is therefore a quite different matter from the services to which he referred.
  It would be unfair to put the whole cost of this Supplementary Estimate on the arrangements for the staff. and that was the argument which was adopted by the Financial Secretary. In a way, it is possible to take one item from one side of the balance-sheet and say that that item is responsible for the deficit, but that is, surely, a very unreal way of dealing with a matter like this? An essential element in the cost of food is the element in respect of the cost of preparing and serving it, and it is equally

  2305
  a fact, whether such a thing is desirable or not, that, were more to be charged for that food, the deficit would be less. I hope we shall not continue the discussion on that basis, for that is a very unreal attitude to this matter, because it is a wholly arbitrary separation of one particular item.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I am sorry that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee is not here, but I think there is some misunderstanding about the point we were making. It was agreed that to keep the staff all the year round would cost £18,000 while the House was in Recess, and that is why we are bound to have a deficit, though making a profit while the House is sitting.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully understand the argument, and it is put very clearly by the hon. Member in Column 2159 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to it, I would say that, to the best of my recollection—and I speak subject to correction—when this change in the conditions of employment of the staff was put forward, there was no general understanding that it would be implemented at the expense of the taxpayers. There was no such general understanding, and there is very much doubt whether it would have been so universally accepted had that been made quite clear.
  Secondly, the hon. Member is not really applying his mind to this. Admittedly, the task of the Committee has been made more difficult. No one could exclude that fact, any more than they could exclude the fact that the Committee's work is made much easier by the free provision of premises. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily follow that if, in fact, there were less amenities in other directions, the deficit would be less. Surely, the hon. Member appreciates that point, and therefore we are entitled to approach this matter from that point of view. But are we entitled, in the situation of today, to ask the taxpayer to find a substantial sum to support the amenities provided for hon. Members of this House? Are we entitled to ask the heavily-taxed people of the country to submit to taxation for that purpose?
  Mr. Dumpleton: The hon. Gentleman has on two or three
  2306
  occasions used the phrase "amenities for hon. Members of this House." Would he bring out the fact that, as compared with the number of people taking advantage of these amenities, hon. Members of this House in fact constitute a minority?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to that point, and I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that other people participate, but the argument, as I understood it, put by the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, was that the justification for the provision, in the first place, was that it was necessary to enable hon. Members of this House to perform their duty, and, only secondly, that it was necessary for some other persons, some 1,200 of them. If it is suggested, as it now is by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), that part of the deficit is due to providing services for people other than hon. Members of this House, ought we not very carefully to scrutinise this Estimate and determine whether we are entitled to charge the taxpayer for the provision of amenities for these other persons?
  Let us examine this matter further. As I understand the Report of the Kitchen Committee, they contemplate equipping and running a new room for the Press in the new building. Why should the Kitchen Committee have to bear a loss in catering for other people? Should not the room be handed over to the Press, and the members of the Press be allowed to make their own arrangements. without effect on the finances of the Kitchen Committee or on the taxpayer? If this matter is to be run at a loss, it is the duty both of the Financial Secretary, as recommending this Estimate, and of the Kitchen Committee to reduce the number of persons who swell the total of the figures to which we refer. We are not entitled to say, as was said by an hon. Member a fortnight ago, that because the Serjeant at Arms permits certain people to use various amenities of this House that are maintained by the Kitchen Committee, that automatically gives a blank cheque on the taxpayer in respect of those persons.
  We heard earlier this afternoon of a further reduction in the domestic ration of meat. People outside feel that it is quite wrong at such a time—and I stress at such a time—to provide this very substantial subsidy towards the provision of

  2307
  meals within this building. It would not be right to challenge the attitude of the Kitchen Committee further than to say that we had no intimation whatsoever in the Debate a fortnight ago, either from the Financial Secretary or from the two representatives of the Kitchen Committee who took part in the Debate, that this Supplementary Estimate was being introduced in a somewhat penitent mood and with a promise of being better in the future. We had no such indication, and I notice that the Financial Secretary is quite frank about it now. He indicates, as I think those movements of his head indicate—they are both lateral and vertical—that there is no such intention.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I have the record for nearly 100 years to go by, and right throughout that period, when conditions for the staff were terrible, the taxpayers still paid most years a subvention to the Kitchen Committee of this House.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to analyse what he says. In the first place, I take it that it is not being put forward by a Socialist Financial Secretary that because a thing has been done in the past, that is an argument for continuing to do it now, regardless of expense.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is an argument for being cautious when one is asked to give a promise for the future.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not ask the Financial Secretary to give a promise for the future; I only ask for some indication from him that he recognises that a subvention on this scale is highly undesirable, and for some indication that he, and those on whose behalf he is asking for it, realise that, and are taking steps to reduce the need for the future.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to adopt the argument that certain grants were made in the past: but that is not a conclusive reason for doing it now, for two very good reasons. The first reason, it seems to me, is that we are now asking it of the taxpayers when taxation is infinitely higher than it was in those days, and, secondly, we are asking for it now when hon. Members are paid very much more than they
  2308
  were in those days. It seems to me that both these entirely new factors in the situation alter the argument. All I am really asking the right hon. Gentleman —and I am sure this will be a matter of some interest to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—is this: if he gets this Supplementary Estimate, can he give any undertaking that in the future we shall not be met with similar demands year by year? Can we have some indication of that, or is this put forward as being something perfectly satisfactory in itself? Have we any undertaking that an attempt will be made to economise?
  It would be a little offensive to go into the details of the Kitchen Committee's expenditure, but at a time when, for example, new liveries for the staff are being provided, and when the annual dinner is taking place, and so on, it seems quite wrong that this demand should be made without any apology or excuse. Therefore, I hope that before this Estimate is granted, we shall hear, both from the Government and from the Committee responsible, that a genuine and real attempt is being made to secure that, in the future, even if this was not done in the past, certain elements in the provision of meals in this place shall not indefinitely be laid on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) remarked on the fact that when this matter was debated on 18th February he noticed a regrettable display of heat among my hon. Friends who spoke on it. I think the Debate was more remarkable for a regrettable display of inaccuracy, particularly in the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). However, I want to say at once that, speaking as a member of the Kitchen Committee, I think it proper to point out that it appears at the moment that—assuming a continuation of present conditions which confine and constrict the activities of the Kitchen Committee—there is no prospect of any sensible diminution in this deficit, unless the conditions are substantially altered. It would be quite dishonest, therefore, for me to remain a member of the Kitchen Committee and not to make that perfectly plain. Whether hon. Members think that

  2309
  these conditions should continue is quite another matter.
  I shall certainly try to avoid any heat and to put the matter as I see it. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough contrived to make it appear that hon. Members in this House were given a subvention of 5s. per Member per day during the Session. There was only a slight inaccuracy—if I accept his submission—of about 100 per cent. It would work out at 2s. 6d. per Member per day during the Session. But to put this cast of countenance on this situation is really intellectual dishonesty, and I hope we can get away from that kind of thing. The position that has been created arises from a decision—I think a proper decision—by hon. Members that the staff should be paid all the year round, that tipping should be abolished, and that there should be a superannuation fund. I think that those conditions are the minimum which we ought to ask the staff to accept.
  It cost £6,400 to abolish tipping, and because we are only catering for 35 weeks in the year, and for, approximately, only four days a week during those 35 weeks, an extra cost of £11,000 is incurred for wages dining a period when we have no possible chance of earning anything. With the superannuation costs, that comes to rather more than £18,000, and the Estimate for the two years is £28,250. That leaves a margin on actual catering—a profit, if one likes—of some £4,000 during the year. That, as far as my examination of the records goes, is considerably more than has ever been made in any one year during the last 100 years.
  Therefore, it is fair to say that, in so far as hon. Members are paying for the food they receive, they are certainly paying the full cost, and paying prices which are equivalent to or higher than those paid for comparable food and comparable service. I certainly make no complaint because I think the service is excellent compared with similar surroundings. In support of that, I would point out to hon. Members that members of the Kitchen Committee—it is a Select Committee, an all-party Committee, and its discussions are not conducted, on party lines—have very seriously considered this matter for a long time. I think I can speak for all hon. Members when I say that the veriest shadow of an idea that the taxpayer is contributing directly or indirectly
  2310
  to the payment for our food is most distasteful to all of us.
  It would be possible easily to wipe out this £14,000 a year by saying that each Member must contribute approximately £22 a year. Some Members might not find that in any way a hardship and would gladly do it, but the point is that it would not be equitable. It would be idle to suggest that this loss is incurred solely by Members of Parliament. Such a plan would mean that all the other 1,200 persons who have the right to the catering facilities in this House, quite apart from the visitors, ought to be brought into it.
  When we look at this problem the first thing we must say is, "Can we cover the loss by increasing the prices for food?" I think the answer to that question must be, "No." The prices have been increased on two or three occasions and it is well known that the income from all the Catering Departments in this House has declined substantially and is still declining, with the sole exception of the Members Tea-Room where the income has increased slightly. I submit that that is because a number of Members find that they cannot afford to have lunch or dinner in the dining room and, therefore, have to content themselves with snacks and what the Army used to call "tea and wads;" they cannot afford at all times a proper meal. That seems a reasonable assumption. In other words the law of diminishing returns is already operating. If we raise the prices any more it means the loss does not become less but becomes considerably more. I think that is a logical assumption.
  We have, therefore, to ask ourselves, assuming that there is no Supplementary Estimate, how can we close the gap? Particularly in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, I want to emphasise that this is no new thing. In 1936 a subvention of £5,000 was sought and in 1937 another large subvention was sought. Continuously for 100 years various sums have had to be requested. I must repeat that in those years there was not one penny of this additional £18,000 for wages, superannuation and the cost of the staff. It would be idle to charge the Kitchen Committee with inefficiency or with not having gone thoroughly into this matter and I do not know that hon. Members do make such a charge.

  2311
  Assuming, then, that we cannot close the gap by raising prices, I should like to know whether hon Members would say—and particularly hon. Members opposite—that we should close the gap by reducing wages and presumably reintroducing the tipping practice, which most hon. Members thought was a very wrong practice in this House and which they decided to bring to an end. Possibly we could do it that way. If we did, we should have to casualise our staff again, sack them every Friday hoping that they might come back on the Monday and sack them every time there was a vacation. If that were thought desirable, I believe the Kitchen Committee could come along and say, "We have closed the gap and balanced our accounts." No doubt it would be suitably concealed that we had balanced them by taking it out of the staff.
  I believe that would be extremely undesirable, and I do not think the House as a whole would agree to it. After all, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, "Do not charge us with wanting to do anything like that." I put it squarely to the hon. Member: if we are not to do that we must go ahead and see what alternative there is. Does he want us to have American teas on the Terrace every Saturday, charging 5s. a head, or perhaps 7s. 6d., with the Father of the House as an extra attraction? No doubt we could earn money in that way. It has occurred, although perhaps not seriously, to members of the Kitchen Committee. We could earn money, I am quite sure, by commercialising the Palace of Westminster to some extent. I find that idea quite distasteful. Nevertheless, it is an idea; we could earn money and we could possibly close the gap so that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would not have the painful duty of raising this matter and asking us what we are doing about it.
  All these matters have been discussed in the Committee. We have honestly tried to see whether there were ways and means of running the service so that there would be no gap at all. Looking at it as a business proposition, realising that no private enterprise firm in this country will take it on; realising that it would be a hardship to the 1,200 members of the staff who have access to these catering facilities
  2312
  if we were to say that in future the catering facilities will be only for Members of Parliament and that the remainder can go out and fend for themselves. I am bound to say that I think we have to come to this point: if we are to stick to the wages at present paid and if we are to try to give the best possible service and to maintain the prices at as high a level as we can before the law of diminishing returns operates, we shall still have a deficit of the approximate order of the one we have now.
  How are we going to deal with that? Are we going to ask each hon. Member to pay £22 per annum and close the gap that way? That might be one way. Or are we going to take this course—to agree that this is a special expense out of which the hon. Members of this House and the staff do not profit in any way at all? I think, in fact, we are providing a necessary service. I submit that if that view is held, as I believe it is held by all or certainly nearly all hon. Members of the Kitchen Committee, after full consideration, then it would be wrong and somewhat less than honest for hon. Members to challenge that view, although they have a right to challenge it, and certainly wrong for them to suggest that in any way whatever the meals of hon. Members are paid for directly or indirectly by the taxpayer.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) started his speech by accusing me of having made a great many inaccurate statements. I have been waiting to hear what they were. I hope he will point them out to me.
  Mr. Collins: I mentioned one inaccuracy when I said that the right hon. and gallant Member had said that in his view it worked out at 5s. per Member per day during the Session. I pointed out that, even accepting his moral basis for such an argument, his arithmetic was wrong to the extent of 100 per cent.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member for Taunton had better go back to school.
  Mr. Collins: The Estimate is for £28,250 and is for two years. It is roughly £14,000 a year, and if the right hon. and gallant Member will work it out again, as I did two or three minutes ago, he will find that it works out at about

  2313
  2s. 6d. a day. The inaccuracy, therefore, is quite substantial, but I do not want to delay the Committee by retailing all the right hon. and gallant Member's inaccuracies.
  Captain Crookshank: For the simple reason that there is no "all." As for the excuses which the hon. Member tries to make for his inaccurate reply, what we are concerned with is that the deficit this year has to be collected from the taxpayers now, and that is represented by the figure that I stated for the period.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us when he last had this 5s, free dinner here, because as a member of the Kitchen Committee I should be interested to know?
  Captain Crookshank: What a silly question.
  4.51 p.m.
  Captain Marsden: I also am one of the Kitchen Committee. The Kitchen Committee is a Select Committee, which is comprised of Members from all parts of the House. On that Committee, as on every other committee of the same sort, I endeavour to subordinate party politics, and try to work, as, I think, the other Members do, towards a common object for the common good. I say frankly that we on the Kitchen Committee have been rather hurt by the various innuendoes and insinuations that have been made in the House and in the Press and by other people for a great deal of time. There has not been put forward a single suggestion for economy which we on the Kitchen Committee have not thought of already. If anybody can think of something fresh, let us have it. There was the suggestion mentioned by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), with whose words I agree, that we should open our Dining Room as an open restaurant for the public while we are in Recess. In the Royal Palace of Westminster! What an idea! What sort of signs are we to hang out? There might be something in it if we had no greater idea of the dignity of the House. Again, we are under no licensing laws or hours, and the fun that people might have downstairs all night, I leave to the imagination of hon. Members.
  We do not want to close the gap in that way, but in a sensible, reasonable, dignified manner befitting this House. I can
  2314
  assure the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that we shall come back to this question every year; indeed, we are bound to come back to this question so long as it exists. It all comes back to the staff. I get around, and I do not know of any better staff anywhere, than the staff we have in here in every department and in every room. I think that the standard has gone up and that the service has improved since 1945. Before then, curiously enough, every suggestion for the betterment of the staff and for permanent employment of the staff came from Conservative Members—even for the permanent employment of the staff. When the present Parliament started, the matter was not put to the vote in the House. What it was intended to do was announced in the House.
  It was announced that there was to be permanent employment of the staff through the 52 weeks of each year, and that tipping was to be abolished. The announcement was received in the most favourable manner by everybody. Who, did hon. Members suppose, was to pay for that? It had been suggested before. Did hon. Members think that that cost could be paid from the charges for food and drink? They should have watched the matter more closely. They would not have thought that, had they seen the figures. It is utterly impossible. It is most unfair to say that anybody is eating at the public expense. During the time the House is sitting we make a profit—and we have made a profit. Directly the House is not sitting, money trickles away at the rate of about £700 a week. That is included in that figure of £28,000 we are now asked to vote.
  There seems to be a complete misapprehension about these things. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames mentioned the messengers and the HANSARD staff. Perhaps they were not very good instances to bring forward as typical. But there are others. Members have free telephoning. Are they always telephoning on Government or political business?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend would not like to give a false impression. The telephoning is telephoning in the London telephone area only. It would be a pity to give a false impression about that.
  Captain Marsden: Yes, in the London telephone area. If, Sir, you had been sitting in the telephone booth in which I was sitting earlier today, and had overheard the conversation in the next booth as I did, you would have realised that these telephone conversations are not all on political lines. What sort of letters are written in the Library and elsewhere? Are they all on business? We know perfectly well that they are not. Are all the books in the Library political books? No; there is a big section of fiction, and large numbers of magazines of all sorts that have nothing to do with politics of any sort.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Members get their speeches from them.
  Captain Marsden: Members accept these provisions, because they have always been there, and they are accepted naturally as part of the set-up. We on the Kitchen Committee live with this question of the deficit. All we ask is that all other hon. Members should fully appreciate the position in which we are. The Press room was referred to. I can assure hon. Members we do not want to be responsible for the Press room. The Press are very difficult in the way of eating and drinking. On the first day of this Session the tables were laid for dinner in the room provided for the Press, and dinner was ready for as large a number as wanted it, but not a single one turned up. Because of the most modern methods of refrigeration, I do not say the food was lost, but all the staff were there and were paid to be there, and no money was coming in. So far as the Kitchen Committee are concerned, we would willingly hand over the new Press room to the Press—willingly.
  Reference has been made to the £1,000 a year which we are paid. If hon. Members turned up the evidence given before Mr. Tom Smith when he was Chairman of the Select Committee, they would know that one of the reasons why the salary of hon. Members was kept down to £1,000 was, that at that time we had a lunch for 1s., a fixed price lunch. Now, that lunch is 2s. 9d. It has had to go up that much as part of the effort to cover the deficit.
  Earl Winterton: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the proceedings of
  a Committee of
  2316
  which I was a Member, perhaps he will allow me to say that he has no authority to state what were the considerations that led that Committee in private session to come to a conclusion.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: I was also a Member of that Select Committee, and that fact was revealed in our Report—that one of the reasons for our recommending £1,000, was the fact that cheap food was provided in the House.
  Earl Winterton: I was merely taking exception—I think it is the proper thing to do—to any attempt to repeat the proceedings of the Select Committee which were in private. It is an important matter.
  Mr. Collins: Is it not a fair inference, if a salary is fixed at any figure, that discussions must have taken place on the question whether that figure should be higher or lower? That is a perfectly proper inference.
  Captain Marsden: I am glad of that stand-easy, because I was becoming a little hoarse. I am perfectly ready to give all sorts of secrets of our Kitchen Committee. The more the House as a whole knows the facts the better. We wish the House as a whole to know them. However, I was referring to the Press room. We should willingly turn it over to the Press, with the greatest of pleasure. When our salaries were stabilised, the low cost of living in the Palace of Westminster was taken into consideration. That cost has gone up considerably since then.
  However, whichever way we look at it, it comes down to the question of the staff. I do not think that hon. Members who are in close touch with the situation will deny that if we got rid of the staff every time there was a Recess, we should not get them back when we met again. That is absolutely certain. Our staff, some of them highly experienced—they improve while they are with us—would be snapped up by outside firms at once if we were to let them go. Then, what would the House say and very rightly say, about the Kitchen Committee when they found there was no staff? What will happen during the General Election and the Summer Recess that will follow on when there will be a very long gap? Unless the staff are on a permanent basis, they will be without any pay. It will mean that when the House returns they will not find the staff queueing

  2317
  up for their jobs, but that they have been taken over by firms in London and elsewhere who are looking out for good staff.
  The suggestion has been made that the staff should be taken on the Vote of the House of Commons. That would be a fair solution, and I hope Members will consider it. We are not discussing that, however, but the question of making good the deficit which was incurred, not while the House was sitting but when it was in Recess, merely as a result of paying a good staff adequately throughout the whole year. We make money with difficulty while the House is sitting for a 4½-day week, and then we hear these alleged business men, who are successful in their own spheres but know nothing about catering or kitchen committees, saying that we should handle the situation in a businesslike way. "How easy it would be for us," they say, "if our overheads were taken care of as in your case. "The fact is that we are in a peculiar position and do not get the same advantages as outside firms, except that we can sell drinks for a little longer. Outside firms can make money on the holidays to offset their bad days, but that is a time when we are shut up altogether.
  I hope that this matter can be settled, otherwise we shall go on year by year having a deficit under these conditions. I have jotted down two sets of figures for the benefit of those who think we should raise our prices. The suggestion that we should raise prices is a most futile argument. If a thing cannot be sold at 1s., how can it be sold at 1s. 6d.? The obvious answer is to sell the thing at 6d. and get rid of the stocks. The same applies in the case of other catering establishments. If people will not buy more meals at present prices, it is obvious that they will not buy more meals if prices are increased. The total number of meals that are served are approximately the same over a given period but the same number of meals are not being provided in the dining rooms because more Members are being catered for in the team rooms.
  I would point out that there are 14 places in the House for which the Kitchen Committee are responsible. Owing to the remoteness of many of these places for eating and drinking purposes, a staff of no fewer than six is required to convey food and drinks about
  2318
  the building. Who in the world could make money in a situation like that? In the year 1947–48 we made a gross profit of £21,736 on wines, spirits and beer. Is that not enough profit? Personally, I think the prices are too high, and we realise that from the way the sales are going at the present time. During the same period we made a gross profit of £15,607 on provisions. We really cannot put up prices any more.
  In conclusion, I wish to say that we in the Kitchen Committee have explored every possible avenue for making economies. We have thought of all sorts of suggestions, and I have thought of one or two, but as soon as we make them, a howl goes up from Members and we have to drop them. We invite suggestions for further economies, but every suggestion we have received so far has involved more expenditure. It is only fair to the Kitchen Committee that the amount being asked for should be granted. I ask Members to remove from their minds the idea that there is anything political about this. There is nothing political about it at all, and I have never heard any suggestion of politics made in the hardworking Kitchen Committee; if there were any suggestion of that kind, I, for one, should clamp down on it. We do our best, and if there is a vote against this expenditure, then it is a vote of censure on the Kitchen Committee, although I do not think Members as a whole will feel justified in taking that action.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: The speeches we have heard have emphasised the fact that we are a hardworking committee only too anxious to do the right thing by Members and the taxpayers. We want to give the right sort of service both to the personnel of the House of Commons and to the Members. There was an implication in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the Government were taking one line and the Opposition another on the question of the taxpayer being made responsible, through the Treasury, for this £28,000. The hon. Member is not right in thinking that. The Special Report of the Kitchen Committee has not tried to hide anything, but sets out the whole of the facts, the problems, the difficulties and the possible solutions.

  2319
  The Kitchen Committee unanimously passed a resolution asking that a deputation should be sent to the Treasury, and that deputation, which consisted of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), as well as the Chairman, went to the Treasury to ask for this grant and came back with an unanimous report. I would emphasise that it was a delegation not from one side but from the whole Kitchen Committee representing the whole House. Following that deputation, the Financial Secretary indicated that the Treasury were willing to make this subvention of £28,250 for two years.
  It is very important that the House and the country should realise that what is being done by the Kitchen Committee has nothing to do with party politics. The Kitchen Committee consists of members of the Government, the Opposition, independent Members, and so on. The vote of that Committee that the Treasury should be asked to find this money was unanimous. Any suggestion or implication that the Government wish to use the taxpayers' money to feed Members of the House of Commons is completely false. I hope no one will get the impression either that Members of Parliament do not adequately pay for all their meals, or that the Treasury should intervene to provide these services, and I very much hope that the unanimous decision of the Kitchen Committee to ask the Treasury for a subvention will be accepted.
  5.11 p.m.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: It is very gratifying to me that it is generally accepted on both sides of the House that this is a non-party matter. I am not and never have been a member of the Kitchen Committee, but I think the cause of the increased expenditure should be put clearly so that it can be properly appreciated by the general public. For many years I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and in that capacity I noticed that before the war there was generally a loss each year on the work of the Kitchen Committee. If my memory serves me right there was a loss of £5,000 for 1936.
  2320
  What is the position today? Surely it is that, save for the fact that the Government decided to pay salaries and wages to those engaged by the Kitchen Committee when the House was not sitting, i.e., 52 weeks per annum, the accounts of the Committee would show not a loss but a profit. That is very creditable to the Kitchen Committee. I do not wish to make any case against payment of salaries and wages when the House is not sitting, but I want to make it quite clear that that cost amounts to £14,000 to £16,000 per annum, whereas the loss sustained by the Committee averages £11,500 per annum. As I see it, except for that charge the Kitchen Committee would show a profit at present of between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum.
  Members of the Kitchen Committee are not engaged in trying to make a profit. They are there to see that Members get full value for their money, and that no money is wasted. This loss which is shown is a matter which will come up every year unless it is proposed to charge prices which would be prohibitive and equally would not compete favourably with those charged in places outside this Palace. If we are not prepared to continue on the basis of present prices, which I regard as reasonable, the only alternative is to charge the salaries and wages paid when the House is not sitting to some other account. I hope it will be possible to find a means whereby the Recess wages account can be debited to another Vote. I hope that the question of the unbalanced budget of the Kitchen Committee will not be regarded as an annual question, but that a means may be found of finally disposing of it. The Committee have done excellent work in my opinion, and I cannot help feeling that a Committee which comprises Members from all parts of the House should receive our acclamation rather than condemnation.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I cannot follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) in the concluding sentence of his speech. Just because a committee is composed of Members from all parts of the House, I do not see why that committee should be exempt from criticism. I fully realise that the Kitchen Committee is a difficult Committee to

  2321
  discuss, because they are there to be shot at. He who strikes at the stomach of a Member of Parliament strikes at a tender spot. People grumble, say what a rotten Committee it is, that the Meals they put on ought to be better, and so on, but there must be a middle way by which criticism can be reasonable, helpful and constructive.
  I want to make what I believe to be a constructive criticism. For various reasons, which I will not go into now, I believe the Kitchen Committee charge far too much for wines, with the result that no one buys any wine. The profit which would otherwise be derived from the sale of wine does not thereby accrue. I think I am right in saying that no bottle of French wine can be bought in the House under 25s. Any good wine merchant would say that there was better wine than that at half the price. I am in the trade myself, and I take full responsibility for that statement. If that is true—and I believe it can be shown to be true—I think the Kitchen Committee ought seriously to consider whether they should not get rid of their present stock, even at a loss, and buy good French wine, which can be sold at 12s. 6d. to 15s. a bottle. That would tend to increase the profit that they would make and decrease the loss, which, I am quite prepared to admit, must be inevitable so long as Parliament does not sit all the year round.
  A lot of the food produced here is very good, but some of it is not so good. The service, however, is extraordinarily good. I pay my tribute to the waiters and waitresses—I think we ought to do that. I never receive anything but courtesy and, even more than that, kindliness and helpfulness. Now that tipping has been abolished it is clear that that sort of service proceeds from a wish to help hon. Members rather than from what might have been expected—a desire to receive larger tips. The Kitchen Committee deserve congratulation on much of their activity, but they need to be told that the House is watching them closely. I hope they will bear in mind what I have said about wines, because I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that it is correct.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. McEntee: I should like to say a few words which
  2322
  perhaps will help hon. Members to come to a decision. I became Chairman of the Kitchen Committee after Lord Morrison ceased to be Chairman, following very closely Mr. Bracewell Smith as he then was and other Chairmen, several of whom had experience in hotel work and with great experience of catering. I think I am possibly the first member of the Kitchen Committee who ever took the trouble to go into the Library and trace the Kitchen Committee as far back as possible. I traced it back to 1848–101 years ago. Year by year up to the present time there has been a loss on the accounts of the Kitchen Committee, except for nine years. In 92 years, therefore, the Kitchen Committee has had a loss and on only nine occasions has there been a profit.
  Only on one occasion did the profit reach four figures. I am not quite sure, but I think I am right in saying that in that year the Kitchen Committee were able to show the comparatively high profit which they did because they sold a considerable quantity of the wine stocks from the cellars in what was a very good market from their point of view. All these things are recorded and they are open to inspection by any Member who cares to go through the accounts of the Kitchen Committee which are available in the Library.
  From 1801 there have been various methods of running the catering department here. There has always been a Kitchen Committee, but the Committee did not always do the work. It was let out in various ways. On several occasions they employed a gentleman who came from one of the clubs, with experience in catering, and on every occasion when such a person was employed as a kind of manager of the Kitchen Committee, either he resigned because of the loss he made, despite the fact that he was getting a subsidy from the Treasury, or he did the job so badly and supplied wines of such quality and at such a price that the Kitchen Committee got rid of him. Then they tried another method and a contractor from outside was brought in. The contractor gave it up after a very short time, in spite of the very considerable subsidy that he was getting from the Treasury; he could not make it pay.
  Then they brought in some wine merchants; first there were three and then

  2323
  four. They were each given a cellar; the kitchen manager—he was called the keeper of the kitchen—retained for himself a certain agreed share of the price of the wine, and at the end of the week paid out to the wine merchants the amount due for the particular wines which were sold from each of their stocks. But again there were complaints, and that arrangement did not succeed. Then the job was offered to one of the largest catering firms in the world. This firm to whom the job was offered has the distinction of having had on the Kitchen Committee a past chairman of the firm. He had ample opportunity of knowing whether or not the Kitchen Committee could make a profit. He came to the conclusion that it could not, and I presume that he advised his firm accordingly. At any rate, the firm refused to take on the catering in this House.
  With some business experience, though not in catering particularly, my view is that it is utterly impossible for anybody in any circumstances that we can imagine at the present time to make the catering in this department pay. A couple of weeks ago we had about 40 people dining at night. On another night we may have several hundreds. But we have to keep a staff here every night in case people turn up. As every Member knows, on several nights recently the House rose early and people went home. Consequently we were left with a considerable amount of food which we could not sell that night and much of which we could not sell at all. In addition, the waiters and waitresses were there; the whole of the staff were there and they had to be paid.
  There is no doubt that before this Parliament, the staff of the Kitchen Committee were a sweated staff. Every Kitchen Committee whose report I have read, admitted that fact. They all said that the conditions of the staff ought to be improved, but none of them was willing to face that fact and improve the conditions. Let me compare the conditions of the staff in those days with the present conditions. Formerly the waiters and waitresses relied almost entirely on tips. When the House rose, the waiters, with the other members of the staff, were sent away. They received short notice and were invited to come back if they cared to do so, at the end of the Recess.
  2324
  At that time it was easy to get staff because there were large numbers of people out of work. It was always easy to get additional staff at a few hours' notice, and indeed at a few minutes' notice. By getting on the 'phone the manager was able to get hold of several of them. Indeed, he often did so. Does anybody believe, that if the staff were sent away now, say, during the long Recess, we should get them back again? There is plenty of work for such people now, and every member of the House of Commons kitchen staff could easily get work in hotels in London and elsewhere. It would be impossible for any manager running the department to get a staff together quickly as has been done in the past.
  As to prices, we raised the prices as steeply as we could. It has been said that the wines are too dear. Perhaps they are, but it is rather unfair to compare the prices of wines sold in the House of Commons with the prices of wines sold by wine merchants. The wine merchant sells them to an hotel, and the comparison surely is the price charged to the hotel as against the price charged in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Nicholson: Yes, that was precisely the comparison that I was making. Perhaps I was not allowing the House of Commons the full profit which a hotel is allowed, but I was allowing a satisfactory profit—a much more reasonable one, and quite an adequate one according to my calculation.
  Mr. McEntee: I should be prepared to admit that some of the wines we sell now are perhaps rather dear, but it depends entirely on the comparison. If we compare them with some of the better hotels in London they are very cheap. If we compare them with some ordinary public house or perhaps a small restaurant, they are possibly dear. It is entirely a matter of comparison. The prices of many of the things we sell we dare not reduce, otherwise we should show a still greater loss. If we increased the prices further. we should also show a loss.
  I wish that hon. Members who have not done so, would get hold of the recently issued special report of the Kitchen Committee which is available in the Vote Office. If hon. Members will read that, they will see that our takings for the past year, as compared with the

  2325
  previous year, have gone down very considerably. There are Members sitting on the Front Benches and in all parts of the House who have complained to me about high prices. Only yesterday, one hon. Gentleman, who has put many Questions to me in recent weeks, wrote on the back of his bill something to the effect that it was highway robbery to charge him 1s. for a piece of cheese. If hon. Members knew what we have to pay for that cheese, I do not think they would consider it highway robbery. At any rate, if we did not serve the cheese at that price, we should lose still more money, and if we do not serve it at all, we lose all the profit on it. I ask Members to read that report, and I hope we shall get an opportunity of discussing it.
  I should like them to read also one other report which we issued. I went to a great deal of trouble to get the facts and figures in connection with it. It is the 1946 Report, which is available in the Vote Office. In that report we pointed out that it was the expressed desire of this House, not by a vote of the whole House, but by many individual Members speaking in the House, that the Kitchen Committee should improve the conditions of the staff. The then Chairman came forward and said he had been asked a Question by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) as to what the Kitchen Committee were proposing to do with regard to the conditions of the staff. He replied that the Kitchen Committee were suggesting that tipping should be abolished, that a cheaper meal should be put on as requested by Members, that the staff should be paid for 52 weeks in the year. instead of 36 or 37 as previously, and that a superannuation scheme should be initiated for the Kitchen Committee staff, who were the only staff in the building who did not come under some form of superannuation.
  The then Chairman later reported to the House that the Kitchen Committee had decided to abolish, tipping. There were general "Hear, hears," from all parts of the House. He also told the House that they had decided to pay the staff for 52 weeks in the year. That again was met with the approbation of apparently everyone in the House. He said that they had not yet done so, but they were in touch with the Treasury and were trying to draw up a satisfactory
  2326
  superannuation scheme for the staff. All those things were done. Every hon. Member who was in the House at that time must know that we could not do this without heavy cost. It cost approximately £6,400 to abolish tipping, approximately £11,000 to pay the staff for 52 weeks in the year as against the previous 36 or 37 weeks when the House was sitting, and it cost approximately £4,500 to institute the system that is now operating to enable the staff to get superannuation, such as other employees in the House get. The total cost is well over £20,000. That loss has increased rather than decreased because the superannuation scheme has naturally gone up, and it will do so until the end of this year.
  How does anyone in the House expect us to meet these costs? They can only be met by doing all that we have done. We have increased the sales enormously, except for this year when they have gone down, and we have increased prices as high as we can. There is not a meal sold in this House by the Kitchen Committee that does not show an actual profit on the meal as against its cost. I say that because of the statements which have been made both in the House and outside that Members of this House are eating at the public expense. The Members of this House practically instructed the Kitchen Committee to do the things which I have been mentioning, and we did them. Having done that, I say that it is the duty of this House to see that we are given the means of meeting the extra expense which has been imposed on us by the House itself.
  Mr. Keeling: I do not think it is quite correct for the hon. Gentleman to say that it was imposed by the House itself. It is perfectly true that when the proposal of the Kitchen Committee to pay the staff all the year round was mentioned in the House there were "Hear, hears." But the statement which has just been made by the hon. Member, and also on a previous occasion by the Financial Secretary in reply to a Question, was that this House had approved it. There is only one way in which this House can give approval to anything, and that is by a resolution. and that has never been done. I think that we ought to be a little more correct in the language which is used.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to carry that a little further. This afternoon I made a statement about holiday travel. Do I understand that the House did not approve it?
  Mr. Keeling: Certainly it is not correct to say that the House approved a proposal of the Kitchen Committee, unless they did so by resolution.
  Mr. McEntee: I said earlier that it was not actually approved by a vote, but that it was approved by general acclamation on every occasion that the matter was discussed in the House. There is no record, but I have gone very carefully into this matter and have spent many hours doing so, and there was not one solitary speech made against the decisions suggested to the Kitchen Committee; and when the Kitchen Committee reported to the House, their report met with the general approval of all present, although not by actual vote.
  It is rather a pity after 101 years to bring up this question of the Kitchen Committee loss as if it were the first time in history that it had occurred. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was a member of the Kitchen Committee, and he was a party to every decision which we made. He was a party to our going to the Treasury. He voted for the deputation which was sent to the Treasury, and he approved of the proposals when we came back. There is no record of any member of the Kitchen Committee at any time voting against the decision of the Committee to approach the Treasury to ask for the grant which we are now getting. I hope that Members will look at the report, because a suggestion is made there for a solution of this matter, once and for all. If we cannot decide on that, I think that the Kitchen Committee are justified in asking the House to suggest some means by which it can be done.
  We have mentioned three possibilities. One suggestion is that we should go back to the old days of a part-time staff—a badly paid and sweated staff. We lived on them, in my view, far too long. If we do that, what will happen? The staff will, of course, walk out, and we should not get a staff in London to work under conditions any worse than we have at the present time. Another suggestion is that
  2328
  we should increase prices. We have increased prices, and the result has been a bigger loss. As I have said, Members on both Front Benches and in many parts of the House are telling me almost every day that our prices are too high. I agree that in many respects they are too high, but we dare not reduce them, and we dare not increase them. It is the responsibility of the House. They have to find a way out, and we suggest, after very careful consideration, that the cost should be put where it was for many years, namely, on the Vote of the House of Commons in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. That may he a way out. It is the way we suggest, and it is the only way that occurs to me which will be satisfactory.
  I hope hon. Members will not consider this as in any sense a party matter, because I can assure them that no member of the Kitchen Committee has ever treated it as such. There are many experienced people on the Kitchen Committee now, as there have been in the past, and we have done our level best to give a good service, and I think we can say we have given it, at a reasonable price—as reasonable as we could make it in meeting what I would call the decencies of workmen, to enable our staff to live under decent conditions, as they are doing now for the first time in the history of the staff of the House of Commons
  I appeal to hon. Members not to be small or niggardly about this, and I ask them to remember that when they help the mean criticism which we get outside in a certain section of the Press, they are bringing this House into discredit. We ought to make comparisons, as I have done—and it time permitted I could give many—with Parliaments in all parts of the world. I know of no Parliament in the world of any size today in which the Members arc treated worse than the Members of this House, not in regard to the food they eat but in regard to their general amenities, their conditions of work and their services. I hope we shall remember, too, as we ought to do, that this is one of the greatest Parliaments in the world, and if it is to serve, as it ought, the interests of the nation we should stand up for our own dignity and the conditions in which we work. Many of us could earn far more money in outside business life

  2329
  than we do by being Members of Parliament. I believe that I could myself, even at my age. We ought to remember that we are doing a very great job for a very great nation, and we ought not to be niggardly about the means of enabling us to carry on our work here.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee), whose speech we on this side much respected and who has given long service to the House, concluded by saying that this is one of the greatest Parliaments in the world. It is the greatest Parliament in the world, and for that reason we have to consider very carefully what we are doing today. I do not want to make this a party matter; I can speak only as a Member of the House of Commons and say what I feel about it. Probably two years ago, or even before that, we should have placed the salaries of the staff under the Serjeant at Arms Department Vote, but the fact is that we did not, and in the last two years the public has been presented with this undesirable spectacle, which it is difficult to explain: that our stipends were raised from £600 to £1,000 a year. The public will now say that we are asking them to subsidise our menu. Whether we like it or not, that is what has happened, and I, for one, cannot support it.
  I cannot altogether accept either what has been said about the too harsh conditions of the catering staff in the past. If there were some—and no doubt there were—I am very sorry. I am entirely in favour of their positions being regularised, with pensions and that kind of thing. But the hon. Member for West Walthamstow must not make too complete a case of that. In the past during Recesses many Members of the House went to seaside hotels in the Summer, only to be served by waiters from the House of Commons, who were also enjoying a change, and who ensured that we of the House of Commons got a better deal at Gleneagles in the way of the best piece of joint. In those days it was all very friendly. It was quite all right, because at Gleneagles we were only robbing the rich. I say that only jokingly and by the way.
  I am not sure that the entire staff could be maintained here during Recesses.
  2330
  There should be some system of encouraging those who want to take vacational employment, and so ease the strain upon the taxpayer—because naturally, the taxpayer has to find all this money. I think that should be examined. I shall detain the Committee no longer. I conclude by paying my tribute to the members of the Kitchen Committee.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I, as a member of the Kitchen Committee, should like to be clear whether or not he is in favour of paying the staff a week's wages all the year round.
  Mr. Baxter: I am quite ready to answer that. If the staff would prefer to work here during that time, then they should be allowed to contract in—to use a favourite phrase of hon. Members opposite—and be paid for 52 weeks of the year. But there should also be an arrangement for those who during the Recesses want to go to the seaside, and so on, to be encouraged to do so, without losing any rights. There might even be a system of paying them a reduced wage here to enable them to earn extra money outside. I do not want to be obstinate about this, but I do not believe that the taxpayer should be made to pay for everything like this. I see the Financial Secretary showing some encouragement towards my point of view, and I do urge—
  Captain Marsden: The hon. Member seems very anxious for the staff to go to the seaside. I hope he appreciates that they get a fortnight's leave with full pay to enable them to do that.
  Mr. Baxter: That only reinforces my point. If they want to go for a fortnight they will get a fortnight's pay. But they may want to go for longer. At any rate, I think the Financial Secretary is sufficiently sympathetic towards what I have said. If there are economies which can be made, by all means let us make them. The fact is, we did not anticipate this situation, and we have to say to the country, that, through no fault of our own, we are in the "red" £28,000. We raised our salaries, by our own decision, from £600 to £1,000 a year, and we now ask the taxpayer to pay for our losses on catering. I cannot support that, and if there is a Division I shall go into the Lobby and vote against it. If the question

  2331
  comes back at us, "How are you going to meet it?" I would say that we are 600 men and women, we incurred those losses, and the first decision we must take is: Shall the taxpayer pay, out of his meagre pocket, the losses incurred by catering in the House of Commons? If that question is asked, I shall vote "No."
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee stated with truth that no member of the Kitchen Committee voted against paying the staff full wages throughout the year. I think he will confirm—and certainly it will be within the recollection of every member of the Kitchen Committee present today—that when that proposal was made, we did not think the decision would involve any charge on the taxpayer; we made a miscalculation, and I do not desire to deny my share of the responsibility. It would not be in Order, I think, to debate the recent Special Report of the Kitchen Committee, but as the Chairman has just stated that that Report recommended that the entire cost of staff and equipment should be put on the taxpayer I should like to make it clear that four Members of that Committee, including myself, voted against that because they thought further and better efforts should be made to avoid any charge on the taxpayer.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: For the guidance of those of us who are not on the Kitchen Committee, would the hon. Member suggest two or three alternatives?
  Mr. Keeling: No, because I do not think that would be in Order, although I should be prepared to do so.
  Mr. Shurmer: They want the old system back again.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: I shall detain the Committee only a few minutes, because I said what I have to say the other evening. I object to the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in criticising the activities of the Kitchen Committee and of the Special Committee which produced the Report, because if he reveals the secrets of what happened inside that meeting—
  Mr. Keeling: I have not. What I said is all in the Report.
  Mr. Davies: —I should have to reveal that I nominated him as a member of this Special Committee to go into the whole question of catering in this House with a view of putting it on a proper basis. He refused to serve, and it is rather unfair that he should come now and criticise the whole Committee when he himself refused to give us the benefit of his vast experience in the world of—
  Mr. Nicholson: On a point of Order. Are we not getting into rather dangerous waters when what took place in a committee is revealed, unless it is contained in the Report of that committee to this House?
  The Deputy-Chairman(Mr. Bowles): The Committee has reported.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Further to that point of Order. Is it any more out of Order to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, in the case of the statement made by my hon. Friend than it was in the case of the statement made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling)?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think it is in Order as the Committee has reported to the House.
  Mr. Nicholson: Those details were not included in the report.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee has made its report, and this Committee can discuss it and other things leading up to that report.
  Captain Crookshank: I think there is some misunderstanding here. What was referred to appears on the back page of the report which has been published, but what has been said by the hon. Member for South-west St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) is something which is private knowledge and does not appear in the report. Therefore, I submit that it is not in Order.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for South-west St. Pancras had better keep off that line of argument.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: I have made my point and I have no intention of pursuing it. We have heard that we ought to have other sources of putting the Catering Department on a financial basis, and

  2333
  I am certain that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee would be only too anxious to find ways of putting it on a sound financial basis. I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, with two notable exceptions, criticised the Committee, if they could tell us how any firm under private enterprise could show a profit when working only 4½ days a week and 37 weeks in a year while giving a pension scheme and holidays with pay to the employees.
  Mr. Shurmer: And wages all the year round.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: Yes, and wages all the year round. It would be absolutely impossible for any organisation to do it. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) have mentioned the matter of eating at the expense of the taxpayer. That is completely untrue. All we are asking the Committee to do is to give us a sum of money to pay the wages of the staff while the House of Commons is not sitting, and anyone who opposes this Estimate ought to have the courage to get up and say we ought not to pay the staff while the House is not sitting. If that is done the Kitchen Committee can make a profit. This House—I know the hon. Member for Twickenham will quarrel about the actual use of the word "approve"—approved this. I remember it was a Friday morning when you, Mr. Bowles, from the benches opposite asked the question which caused this announcement to be made, and, while no vote was taken, there was general approval throughout this House, because for the first time the staff of the House of Commons were going to be treated as reasonable human beings and paid not by the hour.
  Mr. Shurmer: And not by tips.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: They were to be paid properly as well as having a pension and holidays with pay. If this Committee wishes to reverse this decision it is easy. We can take the decision, but if we wish the new conditions to prevail then this Supplementary Estimate must be given to the Kitchen Committee. There is no other way out.
  Mr. Keeling: I must draw attention to one omission from the remarks of the
  2334
  hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Hadyn Davies). He failed to point out that I myself moved that
  "It is expedient to balance the accounts for 1949 without any Supplementary Estimate."
  That Motion was rejected and, therefore, it is not at all surprising that I declined to serve on a sub-committee which had less definite and less strong terms of reference.
  Captain Marsden: If these remarks are allowed to be introduced, I should like to point out that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) did not put it in those words. He said that the deficit should be balanced by raising the prices.
  Mr. Keeling: I quoted from the text of my Motion.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: And I moved an Amendment to leave out the words "increasing prices."
  Mr. Keeling: That was not the only proposal.
  Mr. Shurmer: Having listened to some of this discussion and having heard the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the work of the Kitchen Committee and the difficulties with which they are faced, I hope that hon. Members opposite will see that their party does not publish pamphlets in the constituency regarding this position, and that if they do, they should add to those pamphlets that they made the staff of this House live on tips before we came into power and under conditions which prevailed up and down the country in the catering trade which we have stopped.
  5.56 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I do not think I can add very much to what has been said in answer to the criticisms that have been made by one or two Members on the other side of the House. I agree with those who said that this should not be a party matter. Nothing could be plainer. The Select Committee is composed of hon. Members of all parties. They realised that a substantial deficit would have to be met, and there was no disagreement by any member of that Committee, of any or no party, to the suggestion that approaches would have to be made to the Treasury. The speech of

  2335
  the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) revived my faith in human nature, because I had felt that it was grossly unfair of those who had been parties to this decision either to absent themselves tonight or to come here and sit quiet while this matter was being discussed. It is my view that the people who took the decisions should accept responsibility for them and that, when they were attacked, they should share in their defence with other Members of the committee. So far as I know, only one Member on the other side of the Committee has had the decency and the courage to get up and put the point of view of the Kitchen Committee as a whole, and to say that he shared it.
  Although I absolve hon. Members opposite of the charge, there is no doubt that the Press and individuals in the constituencies have used this matter for party gain. In my own constituency, letters were written to the Press by people who would not give their name—they were not brave enough to do so—pointing out that Members of this House were receiving from the taxpayer a subvention on their food of over £40 a year. That is not true.
  If the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) disagreed with my original statement that the Treasury were going to find the money for this service, he had ample opportunity to put down a Motion in order to prevent it taking place, because my statement was made at Question time on 5th November. It was accepted with approval in all quarters of the House that, in response to the approaches which had been made by the Kitchen Committee, composed of members of all parties, the Treasury had decided that it would meet the deficit that the Catering Department would incur from the staff's being paid during the periods when the House was not sitting. If the hon. Member for Twickenham will do me the honour to read that statement, he will see that the subvention from the Treasury is definitely confined to the cost of the staff. It is not the gross cost, because the House is open during the Recesses and the staff or a portion of it come here in order to serve Members who happen to be in London and want a meal. It is the net cost of the salaries of the staff during the periods when the House is not sitting.
  2336
  Therefore it is untrue to say, as has been said by more than one hon. Member, that the taxpayer is actually subsidising the meals of Members of this House. I blame the Press as much as anyone. If any section of the people who use the House have a right to be grateful to the Kitchen Committee, it is the Press; yet newspaper after newspaper, whose correspondents in this House must know the truth, have taken no steps to enlighten the public in this matter. In fact, some of them have gone out of their way to traduce the House on this side of our activities. Not very long ago an evening newspaper published a small cartoon. The cartoon was to this effect: there was a Member of the House taking his family through a door marked "Refreshment Department, House of Commons," and one attendant was saying behind his hand to another: "No wonder we make a loss. He's been bringing his family here every day for meals since 1945."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has just implied that the Press representatives in the House are responsible. Will he not discriminate between them and the cartoonist and the publishers of the paper?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to do any injustice to any member of the Press Gallery. It may well be that all of them have united in making representations to their editors and have put it to them that it would be unfair to the House to allow these things to go forth. All I know is that the newspapers have made no attempt, generally speaking, to do so. It is unfair to this House and to its Members and to the cause of democracy, because it is not true that Members of this House have a subsidy from the taxpayer for the meals that they have to purchase here in the course of their duties.
  Mr. Baxter: Is it not a fact that what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing now is amounting to a subsidy on the food and the services?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The plain fact is—I not mind, if necessary, repeating it again, although I thought it was pretty well known, at any rate in this Committee—that, while the House is sitting.

  2337
  there is a profit on the meals that are served. It is when the House is not sitting that a net deficit occurs, because during that period the staff has to be paid. It is that net deficit on the staff which the Treasury has agreed to meet and to which we believe that this Committee will agree. It actually covers two and a half years, not one year. What it will be in the future, I do not know and it is quite impossible to say. What does seem to be plain is that the amount spent on drink, which previously was a great standby and which did help to make up the profit, is not what it was. People are apparently drinking less. If it is the desire of the Committee that more whiskey should be supplied in the bars and the various rooms, in order that a greater profit shall be made while the House is sitting, no doubt the Kitchen Committee will take note of that fact.
  But I think it would be a gross misuse—
  Mr. Spearman: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the possibility that the sale of wine might be extended a great deal if we could have half bottles available instead of only bottles, which cost more than we can afford or can drink?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is a matter for the Kitchen Committee. I am simply dealing with the reasons why we should accept the Vote wholeheartedly. Members in all parts of the Committee should not only acquiese silently; they should be active in doing their best to put this matter into perspective so far as the public are concerned.
  We have heard from the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee himself that, only nine times in the last 101 years has the Kitchen Committee not made a loss. Mostly the loss has averaged something like £5,000. I venture to say that, 50 or 60 years ago, £5,000 had a value something like double such a sum nowadays, probably more. It is unfair, in my opinion, to say that the loss now is greater than it ever was. Although that may be so in terms of nominal value of money, it is not so in terms of the real value of money. The loss is not greatly different now from what it used to be, and we must remember that the staff were then paid by the hour. Today's deficit is not due to any mismanagement, but is
  2338
  entirely due to the fact that the staff has to be properly paid. I think the Kitchen Committee are to be congratulated and not censured for what they have done.
  It seems to me that there are three courses open to us. We can make every Member of Parliament—I do not know why he should do this, since Members are in a minority among those who use these facilities—pay between 23 and 25 guineas a year as a sort of club subscription to the Kitchen Committee for the amenities of the various tearooms and dining rooms. That is one suggestion that we might consider.
  Mr. Cobb: If the suggestion of my right hon. Friend were adopted, what would happen if only one third of the Members elected to pay the subscription? Would that one-third have to pay 75 guineas?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am not suggesting it seriously. I am puttting it to the Opposition as one of the alternatives that might be adopted. They will have to face up to the fact that Members of Parliament, although they are only a minority here, might be asked to pay a club subscription in order to meet the present deficit. That club subscription would have to be between 23 to 25 guineas a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) has said, how many Members would feel able to pay that sum?
  Obviously, we cannot put up the price of meads. We have heard from Members here that it is impossible to put up the price of drinks and still sell them. We are driven back to the old method of employing the staff on an hourly basis. The staff used to have no real security of tenure. They had to rely exclusively upon tips and, if the House went up at any time, they were thrown off without a job. I do not know that any hon. Member wants that done. It seems to me that those are the only alternatives before us, apart from the one which I am now putting to the Committee and which I hope the Committee will accept. No one likes having to come to the Committee to ask it to meet a deficit of this kind. But the Kitchen Committee have been driven to it. It seems to me that we ought to accept their verdict, knowing full well that it is the only way out and

  2339
  that there is at the moment at any rate, no other method available.
  Mr. Keeling: As the right hon. Gentleman has criticised me, I should like to make it clear that I am not going to vote against this Estimate. I accept my share of responsibility for the Kitchen Committee's miscalculations which have
  caused this Estimate. My sole criticism about this Estimate is the misuse of language in the statement that the House approved the decision to pay the staff during the Recess.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes 96.

  Division No. 83.]

  AYES

  [6.10 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gilzean, A

  Monslow, W

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Allen, Seholefield (Crewe)

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Morley, R.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Mort, D. L.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Grierson, E.

  Moyle, A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Murray, J. D.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gruffydd, Prof W. J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Nioholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Guy, W. H.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Balfour, A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Popplewell, E.

  Barton, C.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Randall, H. E.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  Ranger, J.

  Benson, G.

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Rankin, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Harrison, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Binns, J.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Richards, R

  Boothby, R.

  Holman, P.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Bowden, Fig. Offr, H. W.

  Hoy, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hubbard, T.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Bramall, E. A.

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

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brook, D, (Halifax)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Brooks, T, J. (Rothwell)

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

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Shackleten, E. A. A

  Byers, Frank

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Sharp, Granville

  Carmichael, James

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Shurmer, P.

  Castle, Mrs B. A.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Cluse W. S.

  Jones, p. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Collick, P.

  King, E. M.

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

  Collins, V. J.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Snow, J. W

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Solley, L. J.

  Cook, T. F.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crawley, A.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Steele, T.

  Daines, P.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Davies, Edward (Bufslem)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

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

  Longden, F.

  Swingler, S.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Deer, G.

  McAdam, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Delargy, H. J.

  McAllister, G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Diamond, J.

  MoEntee, V. La. T.

  Thomas, D E (Abendare)

  Dobbie, W.

  Mack, J. D.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Dodds, N. N.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Edelman, M.

  MoLeavy, F.

  Tiffany, S.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Viant, S. P.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Walkden, E

  Fairhurst, F.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

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

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Warbey, W. N.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Foot, M. M.

  Mellish, R. J

  Wells. P. L (Faversham)

  Forman, J. C.

  Messer, F.

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wigg, George

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Yates, V.F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Willis, E.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Woods, G. S.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Wyatt, W.

  Mr. Hannan.

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S, (Southport)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hurd, A.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Baxter, A. B.

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

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Robinson, Roland

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Ropner, Col. L.

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

  Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Smithers, Sir W

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Snadden, W. M

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Low, A. R.W.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Challen, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Studholme, H. G.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Conant, Maj. R J E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

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

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turton, R. H.

  De la Bere, R.

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  vane, W. M. F.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  MacLeod, J.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Macmilian, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Walker-Smith, D.

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

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Ward, Hon G. R.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

  Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D. (Pollok)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  York, C.

  Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

  Gammans, L. D

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harvey, Air-Domdre, A. V

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby and

  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid of the Kitchen Committee."

CLASS I

  GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
  Captain Crookshank: I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us some defence of this Vote.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: In this Supplementary Estimate, we seek the approval of the Committee to the additional sum of £60,000 this year to meet the expenses of the Government Hospitality Fund. Most of this, as has already been well published, is due to the fact that No. 2, Park
  2342
  Street, has been set up by the Government as a place where Government guests from overseas can be accommodated. The Committee is well aware that, during the war, and since, the pressure on hotel accommodation in London has been very heavy. Unless one is a favoured individual well known to managements, or unless one has booked a long time in advance, it has been difficult to get a room. Obviously the Government could not find themselves in the situation where they had important people coming from overseas and no accommodation to offer them. It was, therefore, decided to open No. 2, Park Street.
  We have had a large number of delegations in the last 2½ years, as the Committee will understand. The world has been in a state of turmoil; there has been a good deal of coming and going between governments; there have been delegations on financial and other matters. We have had the Empire Prime Ministers here. We have had visitors and highly-placed officials from India and Pakistan. That has been the situation. I agree that more recently conditions have eased a good deal and that there have been periods

  2343
  when it was quite possible to get accommodation fairly easily in the larger and better known hotels.
  We have, however, taken some advice on this matter and we are assured by those who keep hotels and watch the seasonal changes which occur that the pressure on West End hotel accommodation will soon increase. Moreover, when the 1951 Festival occurs, it will put a considerable strain on the accommodation that is available. That being so, the Government have decided that the time has not yet come to close down No. 2, Park Street, which has undoubtedly filled a useful, important and necessary niche during the last few months.
  Earl Winterton: Has No. 2, Park Street, a licence?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have not had stimulants of that kind there myself, but I believe it is possible to get intoxicating liquors at No. 2, Park Street. My information is that it has a licence.
  However, the point I am making is not whether No. 2, Park Street, has a licence or not, or whether it sells or provides intoxicating liquors or not; it is that the establishment has fulfilled a useful purpose. The question then arises whether its function has now come to an end. It is the view of the Government, and I hope the Committee will share it, that it is a little too early yet to say whether No. 2, Park Street, should or should not be closed down. A large number of overseas visitors are likely to arrive this year. We are told that the pressure of accommodation in London will increase again and that, in 1951, the pressure will be particularly heavy. For those reasons I hope the Committee will accept the expenditure as reasonable in the circumstances, and will understand that the Government are watching this matter closely. I am, however, unable now to say that they have come to a firm decision that No. 2, Park Street, should be closed down.
  6.25 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: The Financial Secretary has defended this Vote by explaniing to us what in his view is the importance and use of No. 2, Park Street. If there should at the present moment be any Government guests there, and if they were to be provided with
  2344
  the OFFICIAL REPORT as bedside reading—which might not be a bad idea in general—I hope no one will take any offence at the matter being raised, because it is obviously a thing in which the House of Commons must have its say, and it is the first time that it has come before us. I should like to know more about the Vote than the right hon. Gentleman has told us, because while it is quite true that the Supplementary Estimate which we are being asked to pass today obviously deals largely with the hotel, it is an extraordinary Vote, as I will show the Committtee.
  The original Estimate for this year was £20,000; the Supplementary Estimate is for £60,000, making a total of £80,000. I do not know whether all hon. Members have spotted the fact that this Vote started the year with a credit balance of £40,832, all of which will be expended this year. Therefore, the real total which we are being asked to allow the Government to spend in this year on Government hospitality is not merely the extra £60,000 here, it is the original £20,000, plus £60,000 plus £40,000 odd with which it started the year, which is a much larger sum than one would guess from the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  It may be that there has been a great extension of the general work of the Hospitality Fund, apart from the hotel. It is true that we would all wish those persons who are invited to this country as guests of the Government to be treated with the dignity and decorum which recipients of such an invitation should have. Unless, however, the policy has been changed entirely in these post-war years, the number of persons who are invited to be Government guests are few —at any rate they were in the past—possibly Prime Ministers or leaders of delegations at international conferences. But, after all, conferences of Prime Ministers do not happen all the time; indeed, it has been one of our complaints in this Parliament that this one was so long delayed, and it certainly has not been an annual event in these years. I find it hard, therefore, to understand how it is that so much will be expended on this service. If it is part of the case that during this year the centre—I do not like to call it an hotel, I do not know what the right word is, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman had told us what

  2345
  it is called ordinarily in Government circles—
  Dr. Morgan: Shelter.
  Captain Crookshank: Anyhow, whatever the place is called—I do not like to call it Park Street because we know who had an eye on it at one time as No. 2, Park Street—it was opened only in May, 1948. Therefore, the expenditure which we are being asked to vote may include the equipping and furnishing of the premises. I hope that one of the Ministers will answer this. If this is so, it is really rather startling and alarming to find in the Estimates for the coming year—to which, of course, I cannot refer in detail—under "Government Hospitality" the figure of £110,000, which is very nearly as high as the cumulative figure for the present year.
  We have been able to elicit a certain amount of information from the right hon. Gentleman by way of Question and answer. According to his replies, between May and the end of December, 1948, 96 official guests of the Government have been put up in the hotel. They are the people for whom the establishment exists. Anybody else who stays there applies to go or, as I understand it, is sent by some of the hotels who have access to some of its rooms. That, I suppose, is to help put it on a more sound financial basis. The purpose of the building is the entertainment of official guests, but only 96 stayed there between 3rd May and 31st December, which is an average of only 14 per month.
  The accommodation, however, must be on a very much greater scale than that. We have had no official information about it, but have seen a certain amount in the Press. On one occasion, apparently, reporters were welcomed and shown everything, and if I say that there are 60 suites I do not think I am far wrong. That being so, and as there have been only 14 Government guests each month since it was opened, hon. Members can see once again what a great miscalculation there has been in this affair. In his reply of 17th February the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the expenditure involved for these 96 Government guests was £12,000, which gave an average of £5 10s. as the appropriate share of the cost of accommodation, food, drinks and the rest of the hospitality afforded to them, and £6 10s. as their
  2346
  share of the overheads. Therefore, each one of those guests cost £12 a night. That is a very high charge and very much greater than that for which these guests could have been accommodated at any hotel in London.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a shortage of hotel accommodation and that the shortage will continue to exist. One of the reasons for it is that the Government continue to keep hotels under requisition and not allow old hotels to be reopened. Be that as it may, during the last year the Government, as was stated this afternoon in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), have paid reservation fees to certain hotels in order to have options on a certain number of rooms. Is this correct?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was more than an option. Mostly, the rooms were, in fact, actually occupied. The question was how many rooms had been reserved—not how many had been reserved and not used—and I answered that Question.
  Captain Crookshank: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has made that clear. I had not appreciated whether it was that they were reserved and used, or reserved, so to speak, until 6 o'clock at night, as sometimes happens, and then released because whoever was likely to use them was not coming. Apparently the word "reserved" was used not in this way but in the sense of the rooms actually being occupied by guests on the particular days and nights.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Some of the rooms might not have been occupied. Things happen to prevent guests from turning up, but they were rooms which were booked for the occupation of guests. Mostly, the guests occupied the rooms.
  Captain Crookshank: Anyhow, a charge was made and fell upon Government funds and is, therefore, to be taken as being over and above the expenditure of the hotel for the 96 official guests.
  We found further, in response to more questions, that during the period from May to the end of December, 542 visitors other than Government guests were accommodated. Of these 467 were sponsored by the Government directly or by Embassies and High Commissioners' offices. I do not want to ask impertinent

  2347
  questions, but what sort of people were these? I can quite understand the official Government guests, such as Prime Ministers and so on, but what are "visitors other than Government guests sponsored by the Government?" Does this mean a trade delegation or someone who is coming over to inspect one or other of our national activities—for instance, coalmines, factories or the Post Office? Is this hotel provided for people of this kind? They are not given the free accommodation of the Government guests. As I apprehend it, this group of persons makes a payment. The Press said that they paid rates varying between £2 2s. and £2 10s. per night. If this is correct, it means that we have this building, which is far too large for its professed purpose of entertaining Government guests, but that we try to save something from this extraordinary expenditure—it is extraordinary; it has never happened before in this country—by having another group of people who can pay to go there.
  Then there is a third group of persons, apparently 75 in number, who during this period were accommodated at Park Street at the request of neighbouring hotels. That seems to be a very odd category of persons. This is done, I suppose, to help Claridges or the Ritz. I imagine they must be people who are accustomed to staying at hotels of comparable price, and not people who would go normally to a comparatively modest hotel or boarding house. I imagine that they are going to be charged by the Government first-class luxury hotel rates. They are people, presumably who turn up at first-class luxury hotels but are told, "There is no room. We will ring up Park Street and see if they will put you up." Is this what happens? Is there any check upon these people? Again, I quote the Press—I think it was a "Daily Mail" reporter who elicited this information. I mention this for what it is worth, because we have not had an official invitation to inspect this building. The report, after describing the place in interesting language, ends up by saying there was at that time—the date, I believe, was 18th February—
  "one paying guest—a Burmese multi-millionaire, who owns a chain of stores in Burma."
  If he could not be put up anywhere else, I have no doubt, from that description,
  2348
  that he could afford to pay at Park Street.
  This seems to me a very queer use, to put it no higher, of this Government building. There may, of course, be persons in official positions who have not gone to this hotel at the invitation of the Government as State guests, but foreign or Dominion Prime Ministers may not be very keen on having casuals turn up for the night who have been unable to get accommodation in one of the luxury hotels of London.
  They may not care to have them there, yet something of the sort must have happened to fill up the total of 75 accommodated, as we are told, at the request of neighbouring hotels. This is the picture as we have had it from answers to Questions and reports in the Press, and it seems a very queer venture, to which we do not give our approval. I hope that no one takes it from that that we do not approve of having Government guests. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are many people whom it is only right and proper that this country should entertain and if it entertains them it should entertain them properly; but £12 a night is far more expensive than it would be to put the visitors up at the most expensive luxury hotels. For that reason, if for no other, we have to protest against this establishment.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer a few questions which must be put. In whose control is this affair? I can quite understand that when we are inviting Dominion and foreign Prime Ministers and real State guests, the arrangements are made through the diplomatic channels or through the Commonwealth Department, and it is all settled before the persons come. They are met and put up. But who decides that all these other people who make up, in the first category 96, and in the second category 542, should come to this hotel?
  Dr. Morgan: Stanley.
  Captain Crookshank: He would have liked to decide, but he did not have the opportunity. The conversations broke down. Does any Minister accept personal responsibility for who goes to this place, how they are charged and how they are looked after? What

  2349
  happens supposing one of these distinguished visitors is told, "Park Street is where you are to spend your two or three days in this country," and he or she says, "I do not want to go to Park Street "? Does the Department say "In that case we will arrange for you to go to Claridges, or the Ritz"?
  How big is the staff? Is it true, as the reporters tell us, that this place is on a most lavish scale and that the dining rooms of this establishment are used for ordinary purposes, as well as for Government hospitality and that all sorts of other functions take place there? If so, it may be a good way of getting down some of the overheads. Again, is that entirely under the control of the Secretary of the Government Hospitality Fund? In the "Daily Mail" of 18th February there was a report of a banquet in this establishment, a Government banquet, apparently, for groundnut officials. We have already had a Debate on groundnuts once this week, and far be it from me to say anything more on that subject. But are they official guests, or sponsored missions?
  The right hon. Gentleman will see that by embarking on this venture he has left himself open to a lot of questioning and, obviously from the approval which I can see, but he cannot see, of hon. Members who sit behind him—
  Miss Jennie Lee: Do not take too much for granted.
  Captain Crookshank: I should not take the hon. Lady for granted at all. I was not looking in her direction, but at the approving nods which came from behind her and which she will not have noticed, either.
  Dr. Morgan: Not necessarily nods of approval of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying but admiration of the way in which he is opposing sound policy. We are learning something which may be of use to us, if ever we are in Opposition.
  Captain Crookshank: If I can teach the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) anything, I shall be happy and if these are the first steps in his education, I am sorry he has postponed it so long. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has got into great difficulties in this matter and that it is extremely hard to justify to this Committee, let alone to the country,
  2350
  the running of the establishment on these lines. There are plenty of difficulties in the catering trade and the hotel business and certainly money will not be saved. Of course, the object is not to make any money, but it will be lost in large quantities if we run an hotel on the basis that at any particular moment it will not be more than about one-third full and sometimes less than one-third. That will not do. It would be very much simpler for the right hon. Gentleman to take an option on a certain number of rooms in one or two hotels and, when they are not occupied, to hand them back, and when the option has expired to pay for them.
  Because the right hon. Gentleman concentrated on Park Street, I have done so also, but I should like to know also whether there has or has not been a very great extension of the use of the Government Hospitality Fund in the last year or so. There are occasional notices in the Press and it would seem that there have been far more opportunities for Government entertaining than ever before. I am not necessarily quarrelling with that, except to the extent that in the past it was always considered that those functions should be in connection with important delegations, and if we look back to the records before the war we find that they were comparatively rare occasions. Now one sees rather a tendency—again I may be wrong; I can only go by descriptions in the Press—towards entertaining by the Government, which means the relevant Minister. I do not quarrel with this, but the Government seem to be entertaining buying missions and trade missions which in the past were entertained by business connections rather than by the Government. I wonder whether the Government have not rather widened the scope of the original Government hospitality.
  I was a long time at the Treasury and I know something about the Government Hospitality Fund. We all recognise that it has to exist and that there are occasions on which it must be employed, but the whole question is how far we are to extend this. If we start having a private hotel at 2, Park Street, it may be that a lot of foreign guests and Dominion guests would like a weekend at the seaside. Are we to have a sub-branch at Brighton, for example?
  6.48 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Some of the questions which the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has put are entirely legitimate and we should not be doing our duty as a Committee if we did not scan with the greatest care every aspect of Government expenditure. In regard to a novel and in many senses a pioneer venture like 2, Park Street, I am not in possession of information which would entitle me to give an answer to all the questions raised by the right hon. and gallant Member.
  Captain Crookshank: They are for the right hon. Gentleman to answer.
  Miss Lee: The Minister will do so, but in the meantime I will give my point of view, which is rather different from that of the right hon. and gallant Member. When I saw the original Estimate, Government Hospitality Fund Grant £20,000, and then the revised Estimate bringing it up to £80,000, I was disturbed and rather ashamed. I was a little comforted when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded us that there was an additional £40,000 to be added, bringing the total of official Government hospitality expenditure for the year to a round figure of £120,000. What we find in these figures is a picture of a changing world. There was a time when in this country, wealth was concentrated in a few hands, and the majority were bitterly poor, when it was extremely easy for people with large country houses and large town mansions with great staffs and unlimited food and resources to entertain in pomp and circumstance, guests who were in this country either on official or semi-official business.
  I hope that the House will have a proper sense of the place of this country in the world and the dignity of the House and the Government, whatever the political complexion of that Government might be. The days are gone for ever when guests coming to this country can be entertained on any scale round the private dining tables of Members of the House or their associates outside the House. When I visit the dentist or go to have my hair washed, I occasionally see from the illustrated society news that there are still houses in London at which entertainment can be offered in a most
  2352
  lavish way, but there are not many of them.
  I hope we shall remember that when we are talking about Government guests we are referring to guests from Canada, Australia, and the other Dominions, guests from every part of the world, not only from inside the British Commonwealth. There are many people even outside the Commonwealth who come to this country as if they were coming home, people who feel that they have their cultural roots here. There is nothing in the world more pleasant than when one finds that the guests of this country—and I am including semi-official as well as official guests—find our people pleasant and gentle, and find our entertainment and our way of life commendable. By that I do not mean plutocratic. We are not a glossy, ostentatious people. There is no representative British family or representative group in our society which likes vulgar ostentation. If any Member can point out undue vulgarity in the case of 2, Park Street or anywhere else, I shall be the first to censure it and vote against it. But let us first get the main principle clear.
  We must now provide from State funds hospitality much of which was formerly provided—
  Dr. Morgan: Not at £12.
  Miss Lee: I suspect that some of the hostility of Members opposite is accounted for by the fact that they would prefer hospitality in this country to remain cosily centred round the dining tables of Tory families inside and outside this House. One of my colleagues has just observed "Not at £12." Like other Members I want an explanation of that £12. I am wondering—and I put this idea forward for examination—whether part of the explanation is not too much timidity on the Government's part. Have we had too few guests? Has this place, been under-used? Has the Park Street establishment been fully used? For economic, social and cultural purposes, and for indeed scores of different reasons. people are anxious to come here to see something of our way of life and our values. I ask the Minister whether we have been too timid, whether we have been looking over our shoulders too much, whether the cost per head in Park

  2353
  Street would not have been less if it had been fully occupied?
  On one point I agreed whole-heartedly with the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough. Any house of this kind must be a private place. It is almost the substitute for a private home. If the purpose of this place is to provide somewhere to entertain Government guests, it is quite improper that any person should be able to come along from a commercial hotel simply because they happen to have the money. They might be first-class people whom we should be proud to entertain, but on the other hand, they might be the scum of the earth. If we are to depart from the custom of having Government guests in commercial hotels, let the alternative be a Government hospitality centre, and let it be only Government guests who are entertained there.
  I ask the Minister to explain why, although the Government Hospitality Fund is dealt with on page 12, one can turn to "Miscellaneous Expenses," on page 14, and find an item of £25,000 for the Anglo-American Council on Productivity. I wonder if the Minister could explain whether that figure included their expenses when they were living at Claridges? Some of our American guests were not impressed by Claridges. If guests are drawn from Americans of a very high income group, they are quite likely to be bored to tears by a standard super-luxury hotel, which is the same whether it be in London, Paris, New York or anywhere else. It is no treat to them to be put up at a place like Claridges. One good friend of this country said jokingly that all we needed to do was to put one more floor on Claridges and we could dispense with American grants or loans. He was referring to the charges there.
  While guests of a high income level are not in any way charmed by the standard super-luxury hotel, there is at the same time an increasing number of our visitors who are poor people or who belong to moderate income levels, and who are liable to be shocked by hotels like Claridge's. Again, one member of the same group to which I have referred, expressed to me just how much he disliked the entire atmosphere of Claridges.
  Earl Winterton: I should like to ask a question, because I propose to take
  2354
  the matter up later if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Bowles. Is the hon. Lady's argument that hotels like Claridges are of such a poor character that the guests of whom she speaks would like to go to 2, Park Street, or alternatively that the latter accommodation is of such a meagre kind, so in accord with the democratic views that she holds, that they would like to go there?
  Miss Lee: I am indebted to the noble Lord for his interruption, which helps me to make my point clear. So far as Claridges is concerned, I found two attitudes. One was that the very high income guests were so bored with it—they can go to that type of hotel in any capital in the world—that it contributed nothing distinctively British. So far as some poorer guests were concerned, they were rather shocked because they thought it was unnecessarily plutocratic. I suggest that we ought to have in London and in the countryside or at the seaside—the right hon. and gallant Member talked derisively about sub-branches of Park Street—guest houses equipped with the best types of English furniture. [Interruption.] Let Members of this Committee think carefully about the line which they take in these matters, because I suspect that some of them are so anxious to cheapen this Government that they do not mind if they cheapen their country at the same time. When I was interrupted, I was about to suggest tentatively to this Committee that we should ask for guest houses in London and in the country. I should like to see those guest houses equipped with the very best English furniture and English glass and the best English service.
  For myself, I am very old-fashioned kind of girl. The best of the Georgian period is good enough for me. Those who like it, can have the modern stuff. I repeat most seriously to this Committee that we have not only political and diplomatic responsibilities to the rest of the world, but we have cultural responsibilities as well. We paid a high enough price for some of our most beautiful Georgian homes and Georgian furniture and the rest. A good deal of it was bought by people like Lord Holland in the 18th century, who stole their money from the public purse. George the Fourth as a Monarch had one or two virtues although most people do

  2355
  not give him credit for any. One objectionable thing he did not hesitate to do was to keep those who supplied him with furniture and with beautiful silver, and other goods, waiting year after year for their money; and he always outspent his allowances from Parliament. But however we came by some of our national treasures, let us make the best present-day use of them. I say it would be money well spent if we equipped in London and elsewhere homes that are gracious and beautiful, that have no vulgarity about them and no crude commercial ostentation, but do enable—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I am anxious not to interrupt the most interesting speech of the hon. Lady. In these days we have a very wide margin in the Debates on the Supplmentary Estimates, but would it be in Order to follow the hon. Lady in what seems to be an entirely new policy, namely, to provide some place in London where old furniture and things of that kind can be put? I wish to safeguard my own position and to know whether it will be in Order to follow her and discuss at considerable length the most interesting points which she has put.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who spoke earlier, referred to the possibility of the Government opening sub-branches in places like Brighton. That also was not on the Supplementary Estimates, but, it having got across, I think that the hon. Lady is in Order, and so, no doubt, does the noble Lord.
  Earl Winterton: My point of Order was of a slightly different character, namely, whether it would be in Order to follow the very interesting historical argument put forward by the hon. Lady? It is very interesting to hear her desire to provide 18th century furniture and silver and things of that kind in such places as these guest homes.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Lady gets out of Order, she will be informed.
  Miss Lee: I am not so narrow-minded as to confine myself to the 18th century. I mentioned it, because from that period we have an exceptionally beautiful heritage. I meant precisely what I said;
  2356
  that is, that I would like to see, in this post-war period, gracious guest homes in London and elsewhere equipped with some of our best treasures both of the past and of the present.
  I was brought up in the tradition of hospitality and of always putting the best before visitors and guests. That was the tradition in which I was brought up in a very pleasant miner's cottage in 'Scotland. I think it a good tradition, and I am talking entirely in that spirit today. Those of us who have been to America and Europe and made friends there, sometimes feel embarrassed that in our private capacity we have neither time nor means to give as much hospitality as we would wish. In present conditions an extension of Government hospitality is essential.
  Perhaps I may be permitted to enlighten hon. Members opposite about some of the types of guests that are entertained at 2, Park Street. I, personally, have deliberately not gone to 2, Park Street. I shall go after this Debate. I did not go before, because I felt that the impression I might gain about 2, Park Street was not important. What I thought about the staff and the atmosphere did not seem to be important. What did matter was the impression that the hospitality provided at 2, Park Street made on people from abroad who were coming to this country.
  I was charmed and delighted with the impression made on one particular delegation which was connected with the Ministry of Pensions. In it there were four foreigners, all without hands and arms who came from their Government to examine the work that we are doing at Roehampton. Incidentally, if there is one place in the whole of Britain of which this House should be proud, it is Roehampton, where artificial limbs are fitted. One of these armless men was a Resistance leader, but I do not wish to go into their politics. They were a mixed group of all parties. I am thankful that they were not in an ordinary commercial hotel. I am thankful for the delicate and sensitive reception which they received at 2, Park Street, because things have to be made easy for strange men in a strange country, who are armless.
  I consider that was an ideal type of delegation to be entertained at 2, Park Street. They came to this country to

  2357
  see what we were doing at Roehampton, to buy from us and to learn from our example. We sent them home, not only with an appreciation of Roehampton and how we could help them in that way, but also with a feeling that there was still gentleness and beauty and graciousness left in the world.
  I have spoken longer than I intended, partly due to interruptions for which I am grateful. We must remember that there are in the world a great many frightened people, indeed a great many frightened countries. In these modern days there are vast areas where any hope of tranquillity and beauty has been lost. We should be very careful therefore, that our criticisms are not nagging criticisms. If there has been stupidity, waste and extravagance by all means let us go after it and have it corrected, but that is a different matter.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself a great love for beauty. He is referred to in some sections of the Press as a man who has no love for anything except austerity. But no man who has not a feeling for beauty could have done what he did in saving a corner of the Cotswolds from vandalism. Occupants of cottages in one part of the Cotswolds would have found it impossible to have their cottages built of beautiful stone had the Chancellor himself as a private citizen not paid the difference between raw inferior cottages and beautiful stone ones. I agree he is not the only person who has done such a thing. I am sure that there are hon. Members opposite who have done the same. We are a great nation. I agree with what was said in an earlier discussion on the Estimates, that ours is the greatest House in the world. I hope therefore we shall be proud to share with a large number of guests, drawn from all income groups, the very best we have to give in British hospitality.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. J. Langford-Holt: The provision of 2, Park Street has attracted a considerable amount of publicity to that place and to Government hospitality in particular. I should hate it to go out from this Committee that hon. Members in any quarter are against Government hospitality as such. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)
  2358
  made that amply clear, and I hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are seized of the point. However, there are one or two matters which one must bear in mind when discussing Government hospitality. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) seemed to suggest that when visitors came to this country the one thing they wanted to do was to get into a Government-sponsored institution because it would reflect the general outlook and the general life of this country. I do not think that is true. She suggested that Claridges was not to the liking of everybody. That is perfectly true, but I do not think that she would find a true reflection of this country in any Government-sponsored institution.
  There are, after all, many types of hotels, inns and public houses in London and in all parts of the country where people can see Great Britain as it really is. The hon. Lady should not forget that point. We want to provide Government hospitality where it is necessary. I have not got the experience of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough to enable me to say what hospitality should or should not be given. Therefore, I will not pursue that line any further. I am sure that every Member of this Committee is certain that in some cases Government hospitality is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. When that hospitality is provided it should be given on a full and generous scale, and no form of austerity or anything like that should be applied.
  We consider that in the provision of 2, Park Street there has been a lack of economy. The Financial Secretary in reply to a Question some weeks ago, said that 96 persons had been given hospitality as Government guests during a period of, I think, 10 months. I do not suggest that there should be any cutting down in the number of guests, but I consider that the amount of £12 per night—which in reply to a Question was the amount said to be spent—is a little excessive. I appreciate that that amount covers the provision of drinks, cigars and cigarettes. I do not think that point has been mentioned. The main question is, should this place be carried on as it is at present? The Financial Secretary gave his reasons why it should be carried on in its present form. The right hon. and learned Gentleman

  2359
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently that it would cease at the earliest opportunity. He has given that undertaking and we have accepted it. It is my contention that that moment has come.
  I have said that the Government must provide hospitality. There is no argument about that. One of the main reasons why there is an insufficient amount of normal accommodation in every type of hotel, be it Claridges or the smaller, more intimate type, is that the Government themselves hold a very large amount of accommodation. The Minister of Works himself holds no fewer than 10 hotels in the Central London area. I do not include blocks of flats. There are persons in London living in hotels because they cannot get suitable flat accommodation. Even the right hon. Gentleman's retention of blocks of flats influences the amount of room available in hotels of all types. I do not suggest that the Minister is retaining the big hotels, because in the main he is not. He holds what one might call the second-class hotel which presumably would fall into the category for which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock was looking when she said that Claridges was not suitable for a certain type of individual.
  The cost of £12 per night incurred at 2, Park Street must be vastly in excess of the cost which would be incurred if an arrangement were made with an hotel, even including drinks and smokes. The hon. Lady mentioned a delegation which stayed at 2, Park Street and appreciated the atmosphere there. There was another delegation which came from overseas, and the members of that delegation did not like what they found at 2, Park Street. They had the impression, quite wrongly as we all know, that the sole reason they were placed there was so that they could be easily watched by the police. That is a fact, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know it. I do not think it is my duty to say from where they came, though I will if any hon. Member wishes to challenge me. The members of that delegation requested that they should be removed from 2, Park Street, because they felt that they were put there so that they might be easily watched.
  2360
  Many hon. Members have visited other countries and many of them prefer to experience the normal amenities which ordinary citizens of those countries enjoy. I do not think that they wish to be put into some special glass house—I do not use that term in the military sense—or into some specially provided cage. I ask whether the Government have seriously considered the alternative to 2, Park Street. The Financial Secretary told us that, for the most part, this building is, and has been, less than half occupied. There must be a large wastage of room accommodation which can ill be afforded today. Is there not some arrangement whereby the Government can receive help from the hotels at a price to be agreed upon? Is there not a percentage of rooms which they could hold by reservation. Certainly that would be cheaper than continuing to maintain the whole of this very large establishment as they are doing at the moment.
  We have focused our attention on 2, Park Street because we are not arguing about other phases of Government hospitality. I consider that this place has served its purpose. I am not sure whether its object today is not liable to misinterpretation. I am convinced that it is over-expensive for the service it provides. There is still a need for that type of service, but 2, Park Street is not the place in which it should be provided.
  7.18 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: I am a little perturbed by this discussion. I should like to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on his very tricky obstructive Parliamentary speech. I have always considered him to be a model Parliamentary debater. I have always seen him at his best not in brilliant administration on a Government Front Bench but rather in fine strategic work as what I call an obstructionist on the Opposition Bench. I do not use the word "obstructionist" in any bad sense. Tonight the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was particularly brilliant. He handled his subject with finesse. He was really very good, and he did it in a way which, among my own constituents, would cause them to think a little bit.
  Captain Crookshank: They all came to listen to me: it is more than they would do for the hon. Gentleman.
  Miss Lee: They did not vote for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's remark is not quite true, but I am sure that if I answered him I should be out of Order. There is a perfect answer and if I gave it to him it would show that he was under a delusion if not a hallucination. I do not want to be out of Order, and therefore I cannot follow him, but, if he likes to come to my constituency and have a debate with me on any subject, I will take him on at any time. I like fine surroundings, too, and cultured surroundings. I know that the Government necessarily have to do a certain amount of entertaining and providing hospitality. No Government escapes that sort of thing, but, when I am told that the total cost per night for a visitor staying in that particular establishment is about £12, I think it calls for some analysis and explanation. It may be that it is mainly due to overhead charges. If some Government guests come to Great Britain for a very good purpose, whether business or consultations, and have to be accommodated at a cost of £12 per night, at a time when there is a world shortage of many things, when the electorate of Great Britain are undergoing a great strain from difficulties arising from food shortages and rationing, I think that stivation calls for some comment and for more supervision by the Government.
  This is a serious matter. After all, we have to think sometimes of what the common man outside is thinking about us. I would not mind the hospitality being lavish at any time if it was necessary, but I think this requires examination, and I want the Financial Secretary to try to give us some explanation of the situation. The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) rather left me in the dark. She said she would take up my point.
  Miss Lee: Will my hon. Friend allow me? I do not see why he should say that. I said that possibly this establishment had been under-occupied, and that if it had been more fully occupied the cost per head might have been less, but,
  2362
  naturally, I am leaving the explanation to be given by the Minister.
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Lady thinks she has answered me, but she did say that she was going to come back to the point I made, and, with due respect to her, I say she has not done so. Instead of doing that she indulged in a great historical account of the peculations of some public man in London who did something which he should never have done, and which did not seem to have much relevance to the subject under discussion. It seemed to me to be a long way from the subject of this Debate.
  This problem of Government hospitality has to be met. We are entertaining more and more people from overseas than was the case in the past. Colonial visitors are coming here more frequently, and more international visitors are coming. Arrangements must be made for their entertainment. I think that the Government should have a certain standard of hospitality, which is necessary, but I also think that there is a limit. At the present time and in the present state of the world, to expend an amount which is rather showy, glamorous and impressive would appear to the ordinary textile worker in Lancashire as extravagance. I am not saying that it is. All I am saying is that this matter requires some explanation, and I therefore hope that a very complete analysis will be given to us either tonight or on some other occasion.
  7.24 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I agree that there is a more serious side to this matter than has sometimes been exhibited, but we have had tonight a really brilliant speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), the only disadvantage of that speech being that it had nothing whatever to do with the subject of the Debate. That was not intended to be a reflection on your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Mathers, because under modern conditions, one has a very wide margin in these Debates. You, Mr. Mathers, were not in the Chair when I raised a point of Order and received, more or less, an assurance from your predecessor that, as the hon. Lady had been wandering rather widely, I should be permitted, though only in a metaphorical sense, to wander after her.

  2363
  I should like to say that I am in complete agreement with her that nothing could be better for our prestige than for our visitors to see the best possible collections of English furniture, English china and examples of what may be called the classical period of British architecture and internal decoration. But they can see these things already. There are thousands of places where they can see them, and London is very well supplied in that respect. We have no reason to suppose that this particular establishment in Park Street has any of the qualifications which the hon. Lady would like to see applied in the case of foreign visitors. There is no reason to suppose that the atmosphere there, is more homely than that of Claridge's. I understand that one particular resident in this place is a Burmese millionaire. I have nothing against Burmese millionaires, but you can see Burmese millionaires in the hotels, and there is, apparently, also one at 2, Park Street. The hon. Lady possibly thinks that the atmosphere of 2, Park Street would have a different effect on foreigners and make them feel that they were in a more homely atmosphere.
  I do not want to make a party issue of this, because, for the first time in my life, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). I think there is a great deal in what he said. I make what is a very obvious observation—that there are quite a lot of people in this country, whether Tories or Socialists or whatever their political opinions, who will resent the Government keeping an hotel or establishment where it costs £12 per night for every person to stay at the expense of the taxpayer. If I wanted to make a party point, would say that there is a curious atmosphere about this place. Here we have the first Socialist Government in Great Britain running a luxury hotel for a Burmese millionaire and others, apparently, at a public loss; in fact, at a cost of about £12 per night. The only thing that is not Ruritanian about it is that no one would accuse the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of representing Rupert of Hentzau.
  I want to ask who is responsible for running this hotel? Is it left to the very competent gentleman who is the Departmental
  2364
  head of the Government Hospitality Fund, who is an old friend of mine, a man whom many of us have known for years, and who runs Government banquets—Colonel Sir Eric Crankshaw? Is it left to him? Which Department is responsible—the Treasury, the Office of Works? Who takes responsibility for the running of this hotel? I am not asking for the name of the actual manager, but I want to know who in the Government is responsible. My next question is whether the hotel is ever likely to pay? It is quite legitimate to ask that. Or will it always be run at a loss for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave?
  I think the right hon. Gentleman, who commends himself so frequently to the House by his candour, was rather less frank than is normal with him. He said he understood that there was less pressure on hotel accommodation than there has been in the recent past. My information—it may be wrong, of course—is that there is a whole floor of one of the socalled luxury hotels in London empty at this moment. I see the Financial Secretary nods his head. I understand that there is a slump—
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to clear up that point as we go along. I may have dropped my head, but I was not nodding agreement. I do not know if what the noble Lord says is correct, but I shall find out.
  Earl Winterton: I was very anxious to appear in the role of pacifist and conciliator in this Debate, but is it not an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should come down here and ask us to involve the public in a very large sum of money and yet not be in the position to tell us whether or not the hotel is needed?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think we should argue in a commonsense way. It is quite likely that, at the moment, there is accommodation available in some hotels in London; I am not denying that. But does that mean that we have to close No. 2, Park Street because there happens to be hotel accommodation free at the moment, when we know full well that when the season starts we shall not get a room for love or money unless we have booked it?
  Earl Winterton: I do not think the situation is quite as simple as that. Before the war a large number of visitors used to come to this country, and it was always possible to find accommodation for them in hotels. But today, owing to the fact that many hotels are requisitioned, there has up till now been a lack of accommodation. I am told on good authority that at the moment there is something like a slump in the hotel trade. I think that the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will agree to do this—ought to make the most careful inquiries through the Hotel Managers' Association and other official bodies to see what accommodation they are likely to have for Government guests during the Summer. There is something slightly sinister in the political sense about this proposal. It is quite obvious from what the hon. Member for Cannock said, and from some of the speeches made in the country, that some supporters of the Government think it a good thing that hotels should be run by the Government. It is easy to see that a subsequent Government might go further and say, "We have made a success of these hotels; we will now take over all the luxury hotels in London." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite say, "Hear, hear." I cannot think of anything more calculated to lose them votes for the very reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) who suggested that the wage-earner will say, "What are the Government doing running a luxury hotel at the cost of £12 a night per visitor." That is the safeguard we have at this moment.
  Surely, this hotel must be run in an astonishing manner if it costs £12 per night per person. I understand that cost is higher than the cost for similar accommodation in any of the luxury hotels. It was not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech what exactly is being done to bring down the cost. He said that when the accommodation is not required for Government guests, ordinary members of the public or selected persons are allowed to stay there. What is done to fill the rooms when the hotel is half empty?
  Dr. Morgan: They go out into the street and ring a bell.
  Earl Winterton: I cannot think that even this Government would be quite so eccentric as that. I do not know whether
  2366
  they do that in the hon. Member's native West Indian Isles, or whether Lord Baldwin of Bewdley does that in Antigua. I seriously contend that we ought to have more information on this matter. There should bean understanding on both sides of the Committee that nobody objects to reasonable hospitality, but we do not like the idea of this expensively run place, about which there is very little information, and about which the right hon. Gentleman, with all his competence as a Minister, finds it very difficult to answer questions. If we cannot get some satisfaction on the matter my right hon. and hon. Friends will have to vote against this Estimate.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Butcher: I listened as I always do, with the greatest attention to the Financial Secretary. because he is usually desirous of helping the Committee in these matters. However, I found it extraordinarily difficult to follow the reason he gave for the retention of Park Street. He admitted, in exchanges with the noble Lord, that there might be hotel accommodation available at the moment, but he suggested that the hotels in London would be likely to be crowded in 1951. I wonder whether it has ever crossed the right hon. Gentleman's mind that, in the light of that possibility, he could make a block booking now for two years ahead. Is there any hotel in this country which, at the request of the British Government, would not be prepared to put on one side certain accommodation at various values to be released when we knew what visitors we were going to have in 1951? Of course, every hotel would be most happy to cooperate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, of his own personal knowledge, will know how co-operative and helpful certain hotels have been in the accommodation of members of recent conferences who have visited this country. If he can see this shortage so far ahead, he ought to realise that here is a chance to sell Park Street, and to book the accommodation, and not take the risk.
  There was one phrase used by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who spoke so attractively, which I could not understand. She suggested that this increase in the Estimate was due to

  2367
  the fact that people were unable to entertain their own friends in the way they used to do. Does anybody in this Committee suggest that there has been any reduction in private hospitality because the Government are 'doing more entertaining? The hon. Lady said that in the past they used to entertain cosily round the tables of their toadies. I do not know what that phrase means, and I have tried to think of the gathering to which it could be accurately applied. The only one I can think of would be an extremely Left-wing Communist gathering.
  Miss Lee: I particularly did not want to introduce names, but it is common knowledge that before the war a great deal of political entertaining was done round private Tory dining tables. I am not objecting to that, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that some of us are extremely embarrassed when friends come from abroad. We would like to entertain them at home, but that is not always possible because of the rationing difficulty. If he knows a way to get round rationing I do not.
  Mr. Butcher: Let me give the hon. Lady a little bit of advice. She should take them along to the British Restaurants.
  Then we come to the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used. In this, I find myself in the fullest agreement with the hon. Lady. I do not like No. 2, Park Street, for which we are responsible, being used for the "overspill," for the people whom the ordinary hotels prefer not to have or are unable to accommodate for one reason or another. The right hon. Gentleman told us how expert hotelkeepers were in estimating the pressure of accommodation in 1951. I understand, too, that hotel-keepers, in some peculiar way which I have never been able to understand—it is one of the secrets of the ancient and honourable profession—can spot people who are not of the most innocent type or whose credit is not wholly satisfactory. How they make those tests, I do not know. It may be by an examination of their luggage or by the way such people ask for their rooms. One of these experienced hotelkeepers should advise the Financial Secretary on this matter. I can imagine a hotel manager saying to his receptionist, "If you get
  2368
  people who are, in your opinion, throughly straight and above-board, put them on the third floor. If you think they are going to pay well, put them on the first floor, but if you have any doubt about them, send them round to Park Street, because we shall fill up before the evening is ended."
  This is the thing that really worries me, and here I entirely share the thoughts of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). I do not like the idea that we are entertaining visitors from overseas, except in a few limited cases, on a standard of life which is quite out of the reach of the vast majority of the people of this country. We are spending this large sum on their accommodation. We are spending it either wisely or unwisely, but if we are getting good value for money we are letting our visitors live at a rate of income of £84 a week or more than £4,000 a year, free of tax.
  What must be the gross income? The expert sits on the Government Bench and he could tell us what gross income must be earned so that a man can live even for a short period at the rate of £4,000 a year. It is an astonishing thing that Socialism has come to this, that the first Socialist Government is justifying an extravagant expenditure on these things. If this recognition of the variations in income and standards of living and standards of comfort between the ordinary working persons of this country and their visitors from overseas is so marked, then Socialism seems to be only the old Capitalism with far more officials to administer it.
  I should like to see our guests entertained more economically. If we have such visitors that they should be accommodated in luxury hotels like Claridges, then let them go there, but the better thing to do would be to say, "You will probably be very bored there, because one hotel is very much like another, and we are offering you something more simple which will give you an insight into the life of our people."
  7.42 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett: My reason for intervening in this Debate is because I have had experience of running these guest houses, and to a certain extent I sympathise with the Government in the problems which they have to handle. In the war, during

  2369
  the period of dispersion, we had to handle factories in different parts of the country. It was impossible to put up the staff in hotels, so we had to take a house, furnish it, and make arrangements for the accommodation of those who had to make visits in order to keep the places going in different parts of the country.
  In Birmingham, at the end of the war, we were very pressed for hotel accommodation and we took the opportunity of acquiring a house so that our guests from overseas and from different parts of the country, might not have to leave at night, before they had finished, on account of the fact that there was no hotel accommodation. I well understand that this sort of thing cannot be done exactly on the same economic basis as if one were running a hotel which is always filled. The value of such a place is that you have it available. You have to weigh the convenience of having accommodation when you want it, against the cost. You will never be able to run a guest house, large or small, for the purposes for which we had to run them and for which the Government have to run them, on exactly the same basis as if you were running a hotel. It is not a fair comparison.
  Mr. David Eccles: Having had the pleasure of staying in my hon. Friend's guest house—incidentally very luxuriously—may I ask him to tell the Committee how much it cost per night for the guests?
  Sir P. Bennett: I have not the figures with me, but it is more expensive than it would be to put people up in a hotel, because one pays for the convenience of having the accommodation at one's disposal. That is understandable. I have said all this in order to show that I understand something of the problem.
  Turning to Park Street, I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) that our friends, particularly our American friends, are not impressed when we put them up in our first-class hotels. They are pretty much the same all over the world and the food always seems the same to me. If we could put them into the ideal guest house which the hon. Lady sketched, they would be delighted. If we were able to get them away into the country and take them into some of the Cotswold houses and
  2370
  inns, that would be better still. We must bear in mind, when we are accommodating guests, that we cannot put them into second-rate places. They would say, "Why have they done this? Do they regard us as second-class?" It is a difficult problem. We have to do the thing properly if we are doing it at all.
  I happen to live in the district of Park Street and I can assure the Committee that it has been looked at, watched and talked about. Rumour is a very unkind thing, and rumour is that the Government have made a mistake, that they took the place without really understanding how to do it, they furnished it and laid it out regardless of everything and now it is not exactly what they expected, but because it is public money it does not matter. I do not say that is the true story, but it is the story that is going round. They say that because it is public money, nobody worries very much and, therefore, the costs go up. I believe there has been a mistake and a miscalculation. There is no harm in the Financial Secretary admitting it, saying that it has not worked out as well as they expected and because they have not been able to utilise it as they expected they have adopted other means of trying to share the loss.
  This Committee is always very generous. We do not expect the Government always to do everything right the first time, but we should like to know that, if there has been a miscalculation, it has now been gripped tightly, that there will be no more drift and that the mistake will not continue. I do not like the suggestion which has been made that this was a very fine idea; that the Government had to make this decision and that they would make this kind of decision again. I do not believe the Government would. I ask the Financial Secretary to tell us the story and to let us know that, if there has been a miscalculation, they are fully aware of it, that they are alive to it, that they have a grip on it, and that there will be no more public money wasted simply because somebody made a mistake some time ago.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can assure the Committee and, in particular, the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) that the Government did not make a

  2371
  mistake when they took No. 2, Park Street. I would resist with some heat the suggestion that we have really overdone it, that we did not know what we were doing when we took it, or that any other method was, in fact, open to us except the one which was adopted—namely, to open a fairly small house of character in the area, temporarily, for the purposes which we had in mind.
  Much has been said during this Debate as to whether or not it is true that accommodation can be found in London hotels. But I think it is beyond dispute that, in the months which have gone by, certainly in the years immediately following the war and for a fairly lengthy period last year, it was impossible to be quite certain that one could get accommodation in reasonably good hotels in the West End for a number of people at fairly short notice. When a Government of the importance and prestige of the British Government have delegations of all kinds coming over, it is essential that those who run Government hospitality should know with reasonable certainty where the visitors can be placed. I ask the Committee to face that fact, because it is the basic fact underlying this supplementary Estimate. The Government had to do something of this kind. It may well be that some people may think they should not have done it or, having done it, that the cost is too much. But I think that ordinary sensible people must realise that there was no alternative. It is a fact that in the past, nothing of this kind occurred. Circumstances are different today from what they were before the war. Owing to the gross upset of world economy occasioned by the war, an increasing number of delegations and individual official visitors are coming here. Any Government which did not recognise that fact, and make some provision for them, would be criticised—I think, very legitimately—by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked me how we got to know that there was likely to be a shortage of hotel accommodation in the months ahead. We have consulted the Hotels and Restaurants Association and the managers of the better West End hotels. They have assured us that it is their view that the pressure on the hotel accommodation in the months to come
  2372
  will be greater than it was at the same time last year. Either they are telling the truth or they are not; but I think we must all agree that they are experts, and ought to know if anybody does. In the light of their advice, I think it would be foolish of the Government not to keep No 2, Park Street in existence, at any rate for the time being.
  It has been suggested by more than one hon. Member that we ought to make block reservations at various hotels. I speak in the light of what I am told, for I am not in the hotel business myself. I am told that if the Government did this, the cost would, in all probability, be more than that of keeping No. 2, Park Street, open for the time being. The other course was, in fact, considered last year. Fairly considerable space at a number of hotels was booked for various datess; but it did not work out too well. It was often found that the people who were being catered for came just at the time when it was thought the accommodation would not be wanted. The only way to make sure the accommodation is available is to have the accommodation all the year round. And rather than have it at a number of West End hotels, we may as well do what, in fact, the Government have done, and that is, open temporary accommodation ourselves.
  The noble Lord asked who was in control. Control of the Government Hospitality Fund is in the hands of Sir Eric Crankshaw. I was delighted to hear the tributes paid to him by the noble Lord. On behalf of the Government, I should like to say that we share in what he said, and that we appreciate the tribute paid to him. He works in close association with the various embassies, and with the Government Departments that have visitors coming. In addition, the manager of No. 2, Park Street, under Sir Eric's supervision, has authority to accommodate overflow guests from certain hotels from time to time.
  I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear that the figure of £12, given in answer to a question some days ago, was an over-estimate. I think I indicated at the time that it was given provisionally. We were extremely anxious to give a figure that might turn out to be too great rather than too low, because otherwise we could and should, very properly, have been shot at when the actual figure was

  2373
  given. The actual figure, including overheads, for the Government guests who have used this accommodation works out at £9 5s. per night. That figure compares quite favourably with the amounts that are charged by and the costs that are incurred at leading West End hotels such as Claridge's, the Grosvenor, and the Dorchester.
  Earl Winterton: I must disclose my interest here, for I am a shareholder in some of the hotels, although I am not on a board. That comparison is not a fair comparison at all, for the hotels have to pay for licence duty, while this Government hotel does not. I should be very much surprised if it were true that the charge is as high as that. I think it must be a pound less. It cannot be as high.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to detain the Committee because I understand that some hon. Members are anxious to get on with the next business, but I have here a great pile of figures, and I can assure the noble Lord, from the information supplied to me, that the average cost does work out at something like £9 to £9 5s. a night for comparable accommodation at the leading West End hotels.
  Mr. Marlowe: Does that include depreciation, or take into account capital expenditure on the building?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The figure for No. 2, Park Street includes overhead costs, plus food and attendance. Capital depreciation does not, so far as I know, enter into it, but rent is included. The building, I understand, is under requisition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) put a question to me about another Vote, to which, I take it, I cannot refer to without being out of Order. It is one that we shall not reach tonight, in any case. But I would tell her that the expenses to which she referred are for staff, for accommodation and other expenses of the AngloAmerican Productivity Council, and that the Government bears 50 per cent. of the cost, while the other 50 per cent. is borne in equal proportions by the F.B.I. and the T.U.C. None of these expenses has been incurred in connection with the Government Hospitality Fund, and certainly not through Park Street. Certain of the expenditure concerned falls in any case within the Special Account.
  2374
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked me if I would give an indication of the kind of guest who stays at this hotel and the kinds of function that are held there. In the five or six months ending last December, we have had members of the Indian and Pakistan sterling balance conference staying there. The Norwegian Minister of Defence was a guest. There was a delegation from Argentina, and a Portuguese air mission. A Finnish parliamentary delegation too stayed there, as I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will know. There was also a delegation from Pakistan, another from Australia, and another from Austria, and then, as I have already indicated, we had the Commonwealth Prime Ministers here.
  Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is very interesting information. I happen to have been on more than one occasion a representative of the Government abroad, when the British Government paid for our entertainment. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that alt these delegates who come here have to be paid for by the British taxpayers? Do not their own Governments pay for them? That is what we always did—always.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The expenses of some of those who come here are borne by the Governments concerned, but when people come here from the Commonwealth at our request—for example. highly placed officials and Ministers from Pakistan and India—I think it is only, right that we should entertain them.
  Earl Winterton: Does it happen the other way round?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes. Those who have been on visits abroad will remember how they are overwhelmed by the hospitality lavished upon them. It is quite obvious that the Government should not be behind other Governments in this direction.
  Captain Crookshank: Do I understand that if the Foreign Secretary goes to some capital in Europe, his expenses are always paid by the Government concerned? This is a rather delicate matter, but the right hon. Gentleman said that

  2375
  the Norwegian Minister of Defence was entertained here. In pre-war days the Norwegian Government would have paid, whereas on this occasion we paid, although there may have been very good reasons for that. I merely wish to ask whether the Foreign Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is constantly going to France, has his expenses paid by the French Government?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course not. It all depends on who gives the invitation. Where an invitation is issued by one Government, that Government quite obviously bears a proportion of the cost of the visit. I am saying no more than that.
  I have here a long list of functions of all sorts that have been held at No. 2, Park Street, and it is quite likely that Members opposite have been to some of these functions. On occasions when we have visiting delegations, it is right that there should be some entertaining at the expense of the Government. What my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has said is quite true. Conditions have altered. In the old days, when distinguished visitors came here, they were largely entertained by people of some political renown, and often by Ministers who could well afford such entertaining. Conditions are different now. For one thing, very few people can afford to entertain lavishly today, and certainly they cannot afford to do it on a sustained scale. As I have said, social conditions are changing, but it is still necessary that a great nation should entertain visitors coming from abroad. The cost is relatively small. I hope the Committee will realise that and grant us this Estimate. I can assure the Committee that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend are watching this matter very closely; but, as it is necessary to have a place of this kind for a little longer, the Committee will realise that it would be bad policy to close it down now. I can assure the Committee that in so far as we can keep the costs down, it will be done.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to address himself to the point. He goes through the process of arguing that there must be
  2376
  Government hospitality and therefore we must have No. 2, Park Street. That is a fallacy. When we try to counter that argument we are met with the charge that we are opposing Government hospitality. That is not so. We fully agree with the principle that there must be some Government hospitality, but it does not follow that it has to be in a place of this sort, which apparently stands empty half of the time. Obviously, the proper thing to do is to measure the extent of the service which has to be given, and then to provide something which meets that need. Apparently the position is that the Government give hospitality for 50 per cent. of the people for whom they make provision. Therefore, they should halve the size of No. 2, Park Street and provide just that accommodation they want, thereby lessening considerably the cost to the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government will watch the position carefully, but that they cannot see any way of cutting down the expenditure.
  Let me suggest to the right hon. Gentleman one way in which the expenditure could be cut down. If this place is half empty for most of the time, why not contract it out to someone who can fill it? The Government must know at least 24 hours beforehand when their guests are coming, so why not contract it out to some one else to offset part of the expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have thought of that method. This is true Socialist doctrine in practice; it does not matter what it costs because it does not immediately concern anyone's pocket—it is the taxpayer who will have to bear the cost. I suggest that as a practical way of cutting down some of the costs of this place, if it is necessary to have a place of this size.
  But the right hon. Gentleman also seems to have overlooked the fact that the Government are hotel owners in a big way. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has nowhere else to put these guests. Has he forgotten that the Transport Commission have taken over all the railway hotels, which could be used for this purpose rather than this lavish place that is half empty? The right hon. Gentleman must know the size of some of these Victorian constructions at most of the railway termini.

  2377
  Is he prepared to tell the Committee that there is not enough roof in these places to accommodate these guests? The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) wants the guests to see something of the true England. Well they will see it well enough there.
  Miss Lee: She does not want to start another war.
  Mr. Marlowe: I think they would get a far better idea of the England we live in there than at No. 2, Park Street. The hon. Lady's argument appears to be inconsistent. She said that she wants the guests to see the best we have to offer in the way of accommodation, glass, silverware and so on, but I can assure her that the guests do not get Georgian furniture in Park Street. I hope she is not suggesting that the Government should increase this vast expenditure by furnishing Park Street with Georgian antiques.
  Miss Lee: We are now in possession of some very fine houses that have been given to the nation, many of which are furnished. I am saying that we could make use of these houses to entertain our guests.
  Mr. Marlowe: That is a practical suggestion, but it does not deal with the matter we are now discussing, which is No. 2, Park Street. The other argument she advanced was that the Government are justified in keeping this place running at a loss because it is an improvement on the old days when guests were entertained privately in private houses. I did not follow the argument, particularly as the hon. Lady wanted these guests to get an idea of what private English homes were like, and the way in which English people live. Surely, as a choice of the two systems the better one was the one she referred to as being a custom of the bad old days—
  Miss Lee: There is no substitute for private hospitality, but I do not think that either the hon. and learned Member or I would undertake, possibly at a minute's notice, to feed and bed delegations of
  guests coming to this country. We must show a little common sense in this matter. Let us have private hospitality to the limit of our means and Government hospitality when, obviously, we must put our best foot forward.
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Lady is referring to political private parties and to houses in which people were accommodated before the war. She has a far better knowledge of post-war conditions than I have, because it is Ministers nowadays who can afford to do these things much better than anyone else.
  Miss Lee: Would the hon. and learned Member like to tell the Committee how many servants he employs?
  Mr. Marlowe: That is a very personal question.
  Miss Lee: The remark which the hort. and learned Member has just made was very personal.
  Mr. Marlowe: Well, if the hon. Lady really wants to know the answer is one servant for three hours a day, but—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): That is out of Order, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must not pursue it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's servants are not on this Vote.
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Lady's argument was quite inconsistent. She wants people to be entertained in private houses, but prefers that this vast expenditure should be met by the Government at the taxpayers' expense. I cannot help feeling that my suggestion should be investigated by the right hon. Gentleman. The rooms of this hotel should be filled by paying guests, which would help to offset the cost, and the Government should consider whether much of the demand cannot be met by the enormous number of hotels that they already have under their control, through the Transport Commission.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: AYES 224; Noes 97.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES

  [8.13 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Allen, A. C. (Boswortn)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Balfour, A.

  Binns, J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Barton, C.

  Blyton, W. R

  Attewell, H. C.

  Battley, J. R.

  Bollomley, A. G.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Bowden, Flg, Offr H. W

  Ayles, W. H.

  Benson, G.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Bramall, E. A

  Hobson, C. R.

  Richards, R

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Holman, P.

  Robens, A

  Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

  Horabin, T. L

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hoy, J.

  Robertson, J J (Berwick)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hubbard, T.

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

  Royle, C.

  Burden, T. W.

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

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Burke, W. A.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Callaghan, James

  Jay D. P. T.

  Sharp, Granville

  Carmichael, James

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Johnston, Douglas

  Shurmer, P.

  Chetwynd, G. R

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

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Cobb, F A.

  Jones, Jack (Boiton)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

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

  Cook, T. F.

  King, E. M.

  Solley, L. J.

  Cooper, G.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Daines, P.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col, M.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

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

  Longden, F.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Deer, G.

  McAdam, W.

  Swingler, S

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McAllister, G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Delargy, H. J.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Diamond, J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dobbie, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Dodds, N. N.

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Donovan, T.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Driberg, T. E, N.

  McLeavy, F

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Tiffany, S.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Titterington, M. F

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Ewart, R.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Messer, F

  Viant, S. P.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Middleton, 'Mrs. L

  Waliace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Ferayhough, E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Waliace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Follick, M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Forman, J. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Freeman, J (Watford)

  Morley, R.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

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

  Wells, W. T. (Waisall)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gn, E)

  Gibson, C. W

  Moyle, A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Murray, J. D.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Glanville, J E (Consett)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Grey, C. F.

  paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Grierson, E.

  Paling, Rt. Hon.Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Willis, E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Woods, G. S.

  Hale, Leslie

  Popplewell, E

  Yates, V. F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Price, M. Philips

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Randall, H. E

  Zilliaous, K.

  Harrison, J.

  Ranger, J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Rankin, J

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Reeves, J

  Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Reid, T (Swindon)

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. CPollok)

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Bossom, A. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Bowen, R.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Bower, N.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Erroll, F. J.

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Headlam, Lieut -Col. Rt. 'Hon Sir G

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Byers, Frank

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

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Challen, C.

  Gage, C.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  2380

  2381

  Hudson, Rt. Han. R. S. (Southport)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Hurd, A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Turton, R. H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Nicholson, G.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

  Linstead, H. N.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Smithers, Sir W

  York, C.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Snadden, W. M.

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

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

CLASS VI

  BOARD OF TRADE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,529,820, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries, certain grants in aid; and other services."
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would give us some explanation of some of the items in this Vote.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): I shall be very happy to do so.
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman would not have risen unless I had done so, and the Vote would have gone through without discussion.
  There are one or two major items, and one or two minor ones, to which I should like to call the hon. Gentleman's attention. I should like to take the smallest first—Subhead II, S, "Assistance to craftsmen." This Vote has caused me a certain amount of interest because it is one of the examples of the queer wonderland world in which we live today. A sum of £3,000 is voted in the revised Estimate for assistance to craftsmen. But
  if we look to see what that Estimate really is we see a little note at the bottom of the page which says:
  "A sum of £1,000 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund for this service and a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to enable repayment to be made to that Fund."
  That seems all right. Then we turn over the page to find out what this assistance to craftsmen is. It is a
  "Grant to the Crafts Centre of Great Britain to enable payments to be made to craftsmen to counteract the effect of purchase tax on articles reaching approved standards of design and craftsmanship."
  This opens up a great vista of thought and speculation. How does this work? First of all, we have Purchase Tax on art and on design, though why we should have Purchase Tax on artistic designs I do not understand. I am happy to say that upon literary productions there is no Purchase Tax, but there is on artistic productions in the realm of drawing, painting and other crafts.
  Having got this elaborate system of Purchase Tax, there is then what one might call a rebate or withdrawal of the tax when the articles reach the "approved standards of design and craftsmanship." Approved by whom? This opens up quite a picture of the new censorship upon artistic production; if the desigi meets the approval of the Government of the day then the Purchase Tax is repaid, but if the design does not meet with their approval then presumably it does not meet the "approved standards of design and craftsmanship," and the tax stands. I do not know how this is applied, or by what criterion it is applied—whether by the economic formulae or by the more advanced formulae.
  Where would Picasso stand if he were to be subjected to this tax? It opens up quite an agreeable picture into which the Parliamentary Secretary, new to this position, no doubt has made some inquiries. It would be quite interesting to know, first of all, why there is the absurdity of this Purchase Tax upon artistic designs; secondly, why this elaborate system of withdrawal has to be made; and thirdly, how and by what authority, by what criterion and by what decision this splendid phrase "approved standards of design and craftsmanship" is decided.
  Those of us who have recently been to the exhibition of the Chantrey Bequest pictures will know what is meant by approved standards of design and craftsmanship. I should like very much to have some elucidation of the procedure by which this now all-powerful Government, this new totalitarian State that advances upon us stage by stage, decides whether a picture, a drawing, a piece of craftsmanship or art is such as to merit a withdrawal of Purchase Tax or whether it should be still subject to Purchase Tax, and how it makes this grave decision between the Leicester Galleries upon one side, or Sir Alfred Munnings upon the other. I see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is here, refreshed by our morning's work in the Standing Committee on the Iron and Steel Bill. He does not come on until much later. He can go and have some refreshment if he likes.
  I now come to something of greater importance, on which I would like to have some elucidation. We have had four days of Debate upon what is perhaps the most important subject—I say advisedly "the most important subject"—which now ought to occupy the minds of the people of this country, the defence of their freedom against the threats which now oppose it. We have had great Debates first upon the Ministry of Defence Vote, and then upon the three Service Votes. As we move into a situation which reminds me more and more of those terrible years before the war—I should say the situation is very much like it was in 1937—the people of this country are beginning to realise the weakness of their defence position, the neglect of it and the terrible dangers which beset them. Therefore, I,
  2384
  for one, am very glad to see, and certainly do not in any way challenge, Item 1.5 on page 64 of the Estimates—"Purchase and storage of strategic reserves." The original Estimate was £100,000 and the revised Estimate is £10 million. I am very glad indeed. I certainly should not in any way oppose this new item which has come before Parliament.
  I very well remember the Debates in the years to which I have referred for an analogy with this year—1937 and 1938. I remember particularly the right hon. Member the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) calling our attention at that time, perhaps more than any other expert, to the importance of building up a store of strategic reserves of raw materials and of other important products in view of the dangers with which we were then threatened. In a similar situation, when the same or a comparable danger threatens us, I am glad to see, and I hope that the country will take note of, this important item: "Purchase and storage of strategic reserves."
  I do not wish to press His Majesty's Government to tell us the precise materials or products upon which this money is to be expended. I take it that it is really, at this high figure of £10 million—which is very small in relation to the enormous sums which will be required for this purpose—something in the nature of a token Vote. I do not suppose they can tell us just what they will require to spend in the ensuing year for this purpose. While I have raised the question and would like some elucidation of this matter, I have done so not in any way in a critical but rather in a complimentary spirit, because I am very glad to see that this important item is being taken care of, at least in an initial way, in a period so full of danger and trouble as the present time.
  I do not think there are any other items to which I wish to call the Government's attention, although there is another item to which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish particularly to refer. I wish to mark, and to call the attention both of the Committee and the nation to this Item I.5, and I should be grateful for some information—whatever the Government feel within the grounds of security they can give by way of information. I should like to say that, so far as this side of the Committee is

  2385
  concerned, we do not challenge but welcome this particular item of expenditure. At the same time we should like to be reassured and to be given some picture of the general scale and the general plan on which this question of building up strategic reserves is in fact operating. I have called attention to what seems to us to be the most important item in this Vote. If the Parliamentary Secretary can say something about the smaller matter, I shall be interested and amused. On the major matter, I merely ask him to give the maximum degree of information which he thinks that it is proper to give on this important item.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: There are several matters on this Supplementary Estimate to which I would like to call the attention of the Committee. Under sub-head H.8—Festival of Britain, 1951—I see that the initial sum of £25,000 is being granted. We have had an opportunity in a recent Debate of discussing the whole field of this Festival, and I merely wish to raise on this Supplementary Estimate one matter which seems to be going wrong already. I should therefore much appreciate assurances on this point. I understand that the new concert hall to be erected in connection with this Festival is to be erected alongside a very busy railway line, carrying a large amount of traffic.
  Mr. J. Edwards: May I ask, Mr. Bowles, whether we are discussing the Festival of Britain broadly, or only the grant which is to be made to the Council of Industrial Design?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going rather too wide. Twenty-five thousand pounds has already been spent, and he must confine himself to that.
  Mr. Erroll: In that event, could I have an assurance that the Council of Industrial Design has nothing whatsoever to do with the concert hall which is being erected adjacent to a very busy railway line, the traffic on which will interrupt the concerts?
  Mr. Edwards: As far as I know, it has nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. Erroll: Then I am sorry that I should have gone so wide. I pass,
  2386
  therefore, to the next item on which I should appreciate information: namely, Item I.5, the purchase and storage of strategic reserves. This matter has already been touched upon by my right hon. Friend, but there are certain specific queries I wish to put. First, while appreciating the necessity of maintaining a degree of security in this matter, I ask whether the Minister could indicate what types of stores he intends to put to reserve. What minerals and what raw materials are actually to be purchased with this sum? Perhaps he could also give us an indication of the methods of purchase. I do not wish to embark upon a discussion of the relative merits of State purchasing and private purchasing, but it would be useful to have an indication from the Minister of the respective extents to which we will rely on private purchase on an agency basis on behalf of the Department, and the methods of bulk purchase, with which the Committee is already familiar.
  Again, who will decide what materials should be so purchased? Will it be entirely a matter for the Department? Is it for the Service Departments, or the Ministry of Defence? Of will it be exclusively a matter for the Ministry of Supply to place an indent, so to speak, with the Board of Trade to lay in a stock of the necessary raw materials? Strategic stockpiling has been a feature of the economic activities of the United States for many months now, and I should like to learn whether we are collaborating with them to ensure that there is not an unnecessary duplication of this stockpiling. Are we, indeed, coordinating our respective plans in this regard?
  I would query, too, whether the modest additional sum of £9,900,000 is really sufficient. It may be sufficient for purchases immediately contemplated, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, could give an indication of his future intentions in this very important field—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The referee has given the hon. Gentleman off-side.
  Mr. Erroll: I may have bowled a wide, but I do not think I could have been

  2387
  off-side. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us if he wished. In any case, I wish now to pass to item T, the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. We are here granting a sum of £5,700 for their salaries and initial expenses. Thus, the Commission is to be set up, and the Committee has already been informed of the first six industries which are to come before it. In fact, everything would seem plain except one important and vital factor, and that is how the industries to be accused are to defend themselves. If we are to grant this money to the Monopolies Commission, then the Commission should, without any delay, outline its intentions on its method of working.
  Are individual firms to be summoned to appear before it, or is the whole industry to band together first to present its case collectively? Indeed, are the firms to be told in advance the charges against them? How are they to state their cases? May they employ counsel? Who are to be the representatives of those firms? It is a matter of very real concern to the industries which have been named in this House, and I think that before granting a sum of money to this Commission we are entitled to have from the Parliamentary Secretary a clear indication of the intentions of the Monopolies Commission in this regard.
  I know the Minister may say in defence that it will be for the Commission to decide the procedure; but I am quite sure that the Commission will not be deciding its procedure without a very clear directive from the Minister. The Committee is surely entitled to an explanation of the procedure and to be told how it will work in regard to the firms and industries affected. It is particularly important for the firms to know whether they are to appear individually or collectively, how much notice they will be given before they are summoned to appear and what they will have to say when they appear. These are matters of very great practical importance and they are essential if the work of the Commission is to be of the value we all hope it will be. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give a very full outline of the procedure the Commission intends to adopt when it is granted the sum of £5,700.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I want to make some inquiries regarding item J, "Expenses in connection with recovery of salvage." I was prompted to look into this item which asks for £188,000 in addition to the original Estimate of £500,000, by the following extract from the 36th annual report of the Metal and Waste Traders' Association issued on 28th February:
  "The Salvage and Recovery Department …"
  of the Board of Trade—
  "… appeared to know very little about the trade; this Department's work being confined almost entirely to salvage and recovery by local authorities. Time has shown that with constant change of personnel the Salvage and Recovery Department is not to be regarded as a Department which has any but a slight interest in the trade."
  It goes on in that spirit. That is a serious accusation from a trade association who say that they cannot co-operate with the Salvage and Recovery Department of the Board of Trade. However, they say in another part of the report—we would all agree—that the Raw Materials Department of the Board of Trade is a very good Department, and so is the Raw Materials Department of the Ministry of Supply. The money we are voting is probably divided between the stimulation of the collection of kitchen waste and the stimulation of the collection of waste paper. We must ask some questions about both these occupations. Does the Minister think he is getting his money's worth? How big is the staff of the Department? How much are they paying in advertising?
  I start with the kitchen waste. After all, that is a subject into which we ought to inquire because the object of collecting the kitchen waste is to increase the supply of pig meat, and therefore it is of very great importance to hon. Members that this should be done efficiently and to the greatest possible extent. It is noticeable that this Estimate first appeared in the Board of Trade's figures only in 1946, when it was £266,000. That year there was a Supplementary Estimate of £116,000 for kitchen waste. I want to know whether the type of subsidies given then—we have not heard any different since—remain; that is to say, are local authorities still allowed 10s. a ton for the delivery of kitchen waste to concentrating plants not operated by themselves?

  2389
  That was the original subsidy granted in 1947.
  It was estimated at that time that 270,000 tons of kitchen waste would be collected and that £160,000 would have to be paid as a transport subsidy over and above the original subsidy. That made a subsidy of 22s. a ton, roughly speaking. Is that worth while? That is sold to the pig keeper, I think, at 30s. a ton. The taxpayer is paying 22s. a ton. Can the Minister tell us how that works out in regard to the cost per pig? In November, 1947, a second subsidy was granted of 7s. 6d. a ton to those local authorities who had a concentrator of their own but who did not produce more than 7,000 tons a year. At the time, if my memory serves me right—
  The Deputy-Chairman(Mr. Bowles): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt. May I ask the Minister whether pig food and feedingstuffs for animals are covered by the Vote of his Department or not? I am not quite sure.
  Mr. J. Edwards: Yes.
  Mr. Eccles: That inquiry, Mr. Bowles, prompts me to say what an extraordinary thing it is that the Board of Trade, of all Departments, should be mixed up with the feedingstuff business. It is because I think it might be the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture or even the Ministry of Health that this needs looking into. The hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) asked the President of the Board of Trade recently whether he did not think this type of 7s. 6d. subsidy to the small concentrators was a silly kind of subsidy. After all, why draw the line at 7,000 tons? If any local authority is processing 6,900 tons it gets a subsidy, but if it is stupid enough to process 7,100 tons it does not get the subsidy. That is absurd. If the object, as I am sure it is, is that we should get as much extra food as possible to the pigs, then the subsidy should be graduated, and if it is found that those local authorities who have large concentrating plants do not need so much subsidy, then graduate the subsidy in some way that preserves the incentive right through. I ask the Minister whether that has been changed in recent times.
  Now I turn to what I think is a much more doubtful proposition, and that is the
  2390
  waste paper collection which was started in 1942. It must be the fact that waste paper arising from domestic houses does not pay for collection by the ordinary merchant; on the other hand, waste paper that arises from industrial premises always has been a paying proposition to the merchants. This Department of the Board of Trade did not collect as much waste paper in 1948, when the total quantity of new paper being turned out was much greater, as it did in 1942. It has not been doing as efficiently. Are we getting our money's worth there?
  The trade say that the Salvage and Recovery Department, in order to increase their operations, go round the local authorities and try to persuade them to collect waste from industrial premises as well as from houses. That may be all right on the theory that municipal trading is better morally than private trading, but it is bad for the taxpayer because he has to pay a subsidy for these people. I cannot figure it out exactly, but it looks as though over about 200,000 tons of waste the taxpayer is paying some £83,000 to local authorities. under this arrangement directly—a sum at least equal to that of the salaries of the staff, the advertising campaign and the rest. That is 10s. a ton subsidy on waste paper.
  There may have been a time when it was justifiable to do everything we possibly could to collect waste paper, but those days have past. We have now bigger newspapers and more newspapers, and waste paper today is in comparatively easy supply—so easy, that the Board of Trade is refusing to allow the Dutch to send us some here, which they would like to do. There may be a good reason for keeping it out if we do not have the Dutch exchange. It proves, however, as everyone knows, that waste paper today is not in the same short supply as it was. Local authorities were stimulated by the Salvage Department to do this job, but, apart from very rare exceptions, they do not sort or grade the waste paper which they collect. They make a direct contract with the Thames Board Mills, to whom they ship it direct. Once waste paper is made into cardboard it remains cardboard for ever; but if it is carefully graded it can he made again into its original form of quality paper and used, perhaps, 10 or 20 times before it is finally necessary to put it into cardboard. Therefore, not only is the Department doing an injury to

  2391
  merchants when it persuades local authorities to collect from industrial premises, but it is acting foolishly for the paper-making trade inasmuch as the paper is not sorted and graded as it would be if collection were left to the merchant. The time has come to try to save a few thousand pounds and I hope the Minister will shut down that part of the waste paper collection which could be done perfectly well by merchants.
  Has the Minister put on the mat or sacked anybody for their peculiar antics over the salvage of bottles? No doubt, some of this Estimate goes to pay for the absolute fiasco of his bottle campaign. A year ago the Department said that there was a great shortage of soda ash and that everyone must collect his own bottles. A great campaign was launched and all local authorities were told to collect bottles. The trade was brought in and was told to take the bottles and that there would be a good market for them. There never has been a market for them. Everyone is over-stocked, and bottles are lying everywhere in heaps. Local authorities are now writing to the trade to ask, "Can you tell us of any merchant who will buy our bottles? We have been told by the Board of Trade to take them." The whole of the bottle campaign was a complete fiasco.
  Mr. J. Edwards: As far as I understand it, no part of the bottle collection is to be borne on the Vote we are discussing.
  Mr. Eccles: I hope the hon. Gentleman is correct, but I think that it was the officers of his Department who stimulated local authorities to make the collection. If this is not so, there must be yet another Department which deals with local authority salvage.
  Mr. Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I am saying is that in this Supplementary Estimate we are not concerned with any of the costs of bottle collection.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Since the Parliamentary Secretary did not think fit to explain what is in the Supplementary Estimate, we are placed in an extreme difficulty. We were merely given a certain figure, without any kind of the explanatory note which is commonly given
  2392
  to facilitate proper debate on these matters. If he tells us that no part of this £188,000 is connected with the matter of which my hon. Friend is speaking, then we accept it. It would be very much better if, with the Supplementary Estimates, we were given some information as to what was covered.
  Mr. Edwards: I thought I might be able to save the time of the Committee and would be meeting the wishes of hon. Members if I pointed out to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), to whom I listened carefully, that the matter to which he referred was not included in the Vote, particularly as on an earlier occasion the Chairman had asked me what the Supplementary Estimate covered.
  Mr. Macmillan: I well remember that at one time this salvage operation was in the hands of the Ministry of Supply. But for my activities it would still be there. I succeeded in selling it to the Ministry of Works. Lord Reith bought it from me. It was a very bad business and it is unfortunate that it now resides in the Board of Trade. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is well out of it. Are we to understand that the Vote covers not the whole of salvage, but only certain particular items? If so, may we be told what those items are, so that we may know what part of the Debate will be in Order? Unless some explanation is given the Debate becomes very difficult.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Now that we are told that bottle salvage is not in the Supplementary Estimate, any further reference to it would be out of Order.
  Mr. Macmillan: We are told that, but can we be told what is in the Supplementary Estimate?
  The Deputy-Chairman: No doubt we can.
  Mr. Eccles: We have sufficient evidence on the bottles tonight and I shall not refer to that any more, but this is a block Estimate for the Department and therefore I was not able to know what it contained. I would like to end on a point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) raised. It is quite clear that we are not—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not in Order if this 'Supplementary Estimate does not cover bottle salvage.
  Mr. Macmillan: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Since this is a block Vote, merely stating expenses in connection with the recovery of salvage, surely under that any question on salvage is in Order, for it is not within the knowledge of the Committee what subjects of salvage—whether potatoes or paper—are covered. If the Government place a block Vote of this kind on a general item is it not in Order to discuss all the matters which are within the province of the Board of Trade and to deal with the question of salvage?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. A Supplementary Estimate is needed for certain items of the Department. They may need it for bottles or they may need it for paper, or for pig food, but now we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it does not cover bottles and discussion on that matter must be out of Order.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: No doubt it will be in your recollection, Mr. Bowles, as you are an old Member of this House, that on numerous occasions when it has been desired to exclude certain items, the phrase has been used, "other than 'and it would have been possible to have said" other than bottles.'
  The Deputy-Chairman: That may be so and it may be helpful to the Committee on another occasion, but I am afraid that on this occasion I must rule as I have ruled.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Bottles are a most absorbing subject, if I may say so. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that bottles are not included. Have we just to accept that statement? Surely, in order to show that bottles are not included, he should read the list of what is included.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps if no other hon. Member gets up and the Minister is allowed, he will do so. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has the Floor and I ask him to continue.
  Mr. Eccles: When last speaking, I was not referring to the subject which is now out of Order. I was trying to pick up a point from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley that this is an omnibus Estimate. What stands out alarmingly that the efficiency of this Department must be impaired because it deals with so many subjects—to wit, pig food, for one—which do not come under the Board of Trade at all. I ask whether this is not the result of starting with waste paper, paper being a Board of Trade commodity and the collection by local authorities being considered necessary, and then gradually as someone came along and said they would like something else collected by the local authorities, a whole lot has been wished on to the Salvage and Recovery Department of the Board of Trade. The fact is that this is now a tremendous muddle and we ought to know how many people are employed and what are the expenses of the advertising campaign they carry on.
  Would it not be better to put back the business of collecting these commodities to the Departments which really should deal with them? That is the opinion of the trades concerned. The trades concerned all tell me, "When we deal with the main problem of our commodity, we get on very well with the civil servants whose business it is to study that all the time. When we come to the waste products of our commodity, if it is anything to do with the house-tohouse collection we have to go to the Salvage and Recovery Department of the Board of Trade. Those gentlemen know nothing about the main facts of our business so the thing is not efficiently done." So a lot of the taxpayers' money is wasted. It would be much better if this Department were shut down and the work re-allocated amongst Ministries which know something about it.
  9.1 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not propose to explore further the subject of bottles since it is not very easy to know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to make a contribution about bottles or whether they have received a contribution from bottles. I begin by making the submission to you, Mr. Bowles, that in respect of one item which has already been discussed, that is Item I.5, my hon. Friend

  2395
  the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) is perfectly in Order in asking that the Minister should give some answer upon this matter of the stockpiling of strategic reserves and the association of the Americans with British policy. It appears that in the original Estimate a sum of £100,000 was provided which could be taken as initiating the whole procedure of stockpiling. Within six months of that time a revised Estimate for £10 million is brought forward, namely, an excess of £9,900,000. Therefore this Supplementary Estimate represents the initiation and early development of this whole policy of stockpiling. I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would be perfectly in Order in replying to some of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
  I wish to say a word about item J—the recovery of salvage, particularly with reference to waste paper. Some time ago the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), whom I do not see in his place, raised a question about this matter, and we were then told that the price paid by the Board of Trade for this waste paper was £6 7s. 6d. per ton, but the President of the Board of Trade said there had recently been a re-arrangement of prices and that the result was that the collections from local authorities would be stimulated. This does not appear to have been the case, because there is a good deal of evidence today that the recovery of salvage is not proceeding adequately. Indeed, it is so bad that the Board of Trade has been compelled to buy from Sweden and in one order alone has brought 5,000 tons of waste paper here at a cost of £120,000.
  I wish to find out exactly what is the policy of the Government in this regard. They are not paying sufficient prices to the home producer of waste paper to extract it so that, as we all know, local authorities are having to put on the rates their expenditure for the duties laid upon them. Alternatively the waste paper is not coming forward and yet the Government buy from Sweden and perhaps from other countries a great deal of waste paper. In all the circumstances there appears to be a policy of complete muddle on this question of waste paper. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend The Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles)
  2396
  is right in saying that the whole process should now be divorced altogether from the Government and local authorities. Why do they interfere with it? Why does Socialism require us to go on and on with this business of State trading albeit in such mandane questions as waste paper? They cannot even make a success of waste paper. They cannot make a success of the Armed Forces of the Crown. They cannot make a success of waste paper. Had not they better get out of the whole thing and save the taxpayer a good deal of money by decentralisation, by the elimination of controls and Board of Trade operations which now govern this whole business? The sooner it is returned to the simple merchants of this country the better.
  The President of the Board of Trade(Mr. Harold Wilson): I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord on such an important point, but as I spent two or three hours last night with the simple waste paper merchants and had long discussions with them; as it was made quite clear to anyone who read the speeches last night that this business is in the hands of the merchants, and has been for a very long time; and as, apart from price control, there is no control over their activities, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is the whole point. So long as the price control policy of the right hon. Gentleman operates, so long will we rind in these Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, year by year, large sums laid out which have some attachment to this policy of the purchase of waste paper. I suggest that he gets rid of the whole thing and allows not only the actual physical trade to be conducted by the merchants but the price to go free.
  I desire to pass finally to subhead H.6, the British Institute of Management. I wish to know what is this sum of £20,000 which is there laid out? There appears to be quite a number of different authorities concerned with business efficiency at the present time. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very sensitive about productivity and restrictions on industry of one sort or another—trade union and otherwise. They have formed all sorts and kinds of organisations and societies to take care of these things. There is the British Institute of Management which is here provided for;

  2397
  the Production Efficiency Service, about which Questions have been asked in Parliament, and one of their appointees, a Mr. Chappell, resigned in curious circumstances a little time ago; the Anglo-American Committee on Productivity—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord is restricted to the British Institute of Management.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The noble Lord has missed out Transport House.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not proposing to go on to develop the point, but may I say that the fourth item is the Committee on Industrial Productivity. I wish to know what is the relation of all these bodies to this single item of £20,000 laid out in respect of the British Institute of Management? Would not it be much better to dispense altogether with the production Efficiency Service, which cost about £35,000 up to 18th November, 1948, and allow the British Institute of Management—which is a very fine concern and one we all know very well—to carry on with its duties? This Production Efficiency Service was born in rather doubtful circumstances and fathered by Mr. Chappell, the individual who resigned, also in rather doubtful circumstances. Apart from that single question of whether the two could be merged together, I should like to know whether the other institutions which are so concerned with productivity—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have already told the noble Lord that he cannot refer to any other institute except the one in this Supplementary Estimate.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That being so, I hope that we can ascertain from the hon. Gentleman whether any part of this sum of £20,000 goes to the other institutions I have named and, if it does not go to them, I hope that we can ascertain the Government's policy.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. John E. Hake: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) gave us one of his now rare excursions into Bohemianism when he referred to Item S. "Assistance to craftsmen."
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Excursions into what?
  Mr. Haire: Into Bohemianism. In fact, he was in danger of charging the Committee £3,000 for his own Heath Robinson extravaganza of Picasso giving away the Chantrey Bequest. In doing so, he showed a total unawareness of the need for encouraging craftsmanship in this country. I would say to him and the party opposite that the disappearance of craftsmanship is something which has been going on for some time and which they have completely neglected in the past.
  Mr. Macmillian: I only referred to the absurdity of first charging a Purchase Tax upon art and then going through all the motions of remitting it again but subject to the censorship set up by the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Haire: And, of course, in doing so the right hon. Gentleman showed again his complete ignorance of the Council of Industrial Design which has been set up for this very purpose. I should like to have heard some recognition from the right hon. Gentleman of the disappearance of craftmanship in such industries as stone-masonry, furniture, pottery and so on. He apparently has not heard of the difficulty we had in the rebuilding of the House of Commons to get stone masons and wood carvers. My only complaint is that £3,000 is not nearly enough for the encouragement of craftsmanship. I should like to know whether it cannot even now be increased.
  9.13 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade(Mr. John Edwards): A number of points have been raised and perhaps we might start with the point on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) began and on which we have now closed—the matter of assistance to craftsmen. I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have devoted time to this subject in the way that he did. He did rather leave the Committee with the feeling that this has suddenly come along in a Supplementary Estimate and that nobody knew anything about it before. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that hon. Members on both sides were concerned in Debates on the Finance Bill about the position of craftsmen. It was pointed out that many of the craftsmen were in very great difficulties because of the high rates of Purchase Tax applying to certain categories

  2399
  of goods. There was a feeling that craftsmen producing the tip-top stuff might be driven out of business. Of course, some of them were working partly for export and partly for the home market.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was urged by a number of hon. Members to try to do something about it. He said, I think as far back as 8th June, that he could not find a way through the use of the Purchase Tax Schedules to discriminate between this first-class craftsmanship product and other products which were not in that standard. He, therefore, told the House on 30th July, 1948:
  "I do not think that this is a matter that can be dealt with by amending the provisions of the Purchase Tax Schedule. But I have now arranged with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give such relief as will counteract the effect of the Purchase Tax on furniture and textiles and articles made from precious metals (other than personal jewellery), provided that they are hand-made and reach approved standards of design and craftsmanship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1948; Vol. 454, cc. 206-7.]
  He then pointed out that we should have to finance this by votes to the Crafts Centre, and this independent Craft Centre is in fact the body which has been administering these powers. Although I would not suggest that anything very spectacular has been done, it has brought some relief to some people who are producing really first-rate quality articles.
  Mr. Macmillan: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was opposing this Vote. I was simply pointing out the Alice-in-Wonderland position in which we have to take this Purchase Tax and then give it back through machinery which, in fact, involves a censorship.
  Mr. Edwards: I did not take the right hon. Gentleman to be opposing the Vote. I am trying to explain to him how it came about. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman on some other occasion will perhaps explain how in fact relief could be granted in any other way. The question is not whether all craft products are to be exempted from Purchase Tax, but whether those craftsmen who are producing these really first-class products should be given some relief, and I understood that the arrangement that was made had the full approval of the House. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman did
  2400
  not like it, he has had since last June to do something about it, and this is the first occasion on which he has poured scorn on this method of helping the craftsmen.
  I hope, therefore, that I may be permitted to pass to the second and rather smaller point, that about the British Institute of Management. It would not be right of me to follow the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in his discussion about all the other related bodies. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is now back in his place. I was explaining that the British Institute of Management was set up as a result of the Baillieu Report in 1946, and that Report recommended grants of up to £42,000 and £35,000 in the second and third years of the Institute's existence. The actual grants authorised to be given were as follows: 1947–48, £40,000; 1948–49, £40,000. As some hon. Members may be aware, the Institute has made a somewhat cautious beginning, and, in 1947–48, spent only £16,000, keeping the remaining £24,000 in hand for the following year. Thus, within the two years, they would still keep within the total amount authorised on the basis of the Baillieu Report.
  The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate, therefore, is to meet in part the carry forward of the £24,000 into 1948–49, and a further application to the Committee is only necessary because of the unspent balance of the grant in 1947–48. Actually, the B.I.M. now gets a grant in aid and unspent balances are not surrenderable. That is the technical point which I thought I ought to explain to the noble Lord, who evinced such interest in the British Institute of Management.
  I shall now turn to this extremely important matter of strategic reserves. This is a matter of which, I am afraid, I cannot say very much. The first thing I want to make clear—I quite understand that it was not necessarily clear from the printed document—is that we are here making a book-keeping entry, and apart from the storage and turnover of stock this figure does not represent expenditure. For some time past we have been keeping stocks which have been accounted for under our heading of "Trading Stocks." When we ceased to trade in a number of important materials, such stocks as we held were nominated as "Strategic

  2401
  Reserves."It has now been decided that, from the point of view of accountancy, it is desirable to credit the value of them to the trading services head I1, where they were previously held, and to debit them to the Strategic Reserves head I.5.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: That is hard to follow. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "ceased to trade"?
  Mr. Edwards: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we were responsible towards the end of the war and just after the war for trading in a number of important materials. The stocks of materials which we had in hand at the time the trading in these particular commodities ceased—I do not wish to mention the names of these commodities—were held as strategic reserves, and we accounted for them under the head of Trading Services— I.1. We have now transferred them. We have credited the I.1 account and have debited this strategic reserves head which is 1.5.
  Mr. Macmillan: I understand that from that point of view, it is merely a book-keeping transaction, but from the point of view of reality, this carry over of minerals or other materials in which the Government are no longer trading does in fact exist? The stocks are there to the extent of the value placed upon them; it is merely a transfer of the Vote? There are £10 million worth of these minerals or other commodities which the Government have temporarily decided not to trade in themselves, but the stocks are actually held to Government account?
  Mr. Edwards: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We are here talking about stocks which we actually have, and which we shall not dispose of unless we replace them.
  Mr. Macmillan: They are not put back on the market?
  Mr. Edwards: They are here. This Estimate arises not from anything new that has been done, but solely from the fact that we have introduced a new method of accountancy.
  Mr. Macmillan: This is important as naturally this is an extremely interesting item to us. Is the £10 million the purchase value of these stocks which have been accumulated over the past year or years, or is it the present value?
  Mr. Edwards: I hope I am right about this, but my impression is that it is the transfer value. In other words, we have really made a double book-keeping entry, and the value formerly placed upon them under the trading services head is the same as the value now placed upon them under the new strategic reserves head, apart from an amount which I think is allocated to cover interest so that we may get a proper figure of costs.
  Mr. Macmillan: It is not inventory, but purchase value?
  Mr. Edwards: I will confirm that with the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to assure him that these stocks of raw materials which are held as strategic reserves have been so held on the recommendation of the Joint War Production Staff. That is to say that in this matter the Minister of Defence is really the prime mover; the Board of Trade are acting for him and actually holding the strategic reserves.
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman says this is a bookkeeping transaction, which we do not quite understand, for it is a little complicated. It is a transference from one account to another. Where, however, is the reduction shown—in what account?
  Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, I thought I had explained that what we are here doing, in accordance, I believe with the right principles of double entry bookkeeping, is, we are debiting the recipient, the recipient here being strategic reserves under the heading I.5, which is what we are discussing now. There is available a credit on trading services, heading I.1. Of course, that does not arise at this moment. It is purely a bookkeeping arrangement, I would assure the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he is right to raise the importance of this, but I think it would not be right for me tonight to attempt to go into the strategic hypothesis on the basis of which the strategic reserves are held. That, I imagine, should more properly be raised on other occasions when the Minister of Defence would be able to deal with the matter more exhaustively.
  Let me now take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) about the Monopoly

  2403
  Commission. He does not seem to be acquainted with the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948. If he would read that Act he would know that it is quite wrong of him to talk as though the Commission were an agent of the Board of Trade. The Commission is an independent body established by Act of Parliament, and its procedure is laid down in Section 8 of the Act. In so far as it is not precise there, it could be subject to a direction from the President of the Board of Trade, but he would have to lay that before the House, so that the hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that, in substance, the procedure is laid down in the Act. If there should be any details of it on which my right hon. Friend may have to issue a direction, he would give it, and it would lie before the House. What this really means is that this is an independent Commission. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Section again he will see that absolute safeguard for all the people who may have to appear before it. Quite clear rules of procedure are laid down there.
  Mr. Erroll: Are the rules of procedure laid down in the Act? I am sorry I have not sufficiently close knowledge of the Act to say whether they are or not. If, however, they are not, will the hon. Gentleman hasten the Statutory Instruments to which he has made reference?
  Mr. Edwards: I have only one minute more left, so I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman, as also I will with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on the matter of salvage. I will send to him my comments on what he said. I think I have given way so frequently to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley that I must not be blamed, I hope, for the fact that I have not replied to all the questions and comments as fully as I should have liked to do.
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman bas done very well.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, by carrying on this discussion on the very important subjects of waste paper and bottles and so on, the Opposition have not carried out their promise made earlier today that they would launch a discussion on meat
  2404
  rationing, and have given up their chance to discuss the Supplementary Estimates on bulk purchase and food subsidies?
  Mr. Macmillan: Further to that point of Order.
  The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. Macmillan rose—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Macmillan: On a point of Order.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must please resume his seat.
  Mr. Macmillan: I rise to a point of Order.
  The Chairman: No point of Order arises. It is my duty at 9.30 p.m., under the Standing Order, to put all the outstanding Votes. The only reason why I did not do so was because the right hon. Gentleman rose, and I imagined that he was about to reply, had time permitted, to the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, but time did not permit.
  It being half-past Nine o'Clock The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under discussion.
  Resolved:
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,529,820, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries, certain grants in aid; and other services."
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put severally the Questions,
  "That the total amount of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and Statements of Excess."

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1948–49
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £121,876,789, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure in respect

  2405
  of the following Supplementary Estimates viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES

  CLASS1

  £

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  130,500

  8.

  Civil service Commission

  14,350

  18.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  10

  23.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  10

  24.

  Scottish Home Department

  130,540

  CLASS II

  6.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  8,000

  7.

  Commonwealth Services

  10

  8.

  Commonwealth (India and Pakistan) Services

  531,570

  9.

  Oversea Settlement

  137,600

  CLASS III

  1.

  Home Office

  10

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  548,000

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  10

  5.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  643,000

  7.

  Supreme Court of Judicature &c

  10

  13.

  Police, Scotland

  54,500

  CLASS IV

  11.

  Universities and Colleges, &c., Great Britain

  509,000

  CLASSV

  4.

  Ministry of Labour and National Service

  850,000

  14.

  National Health Service Scotland

  5,655,000

  CLASS VI

  2.

  Services in Development Areas

  2,136,500

  8.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

  10

  9.

  Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries(Food Production Services)

  1,935,000

  CIVIL(EXCESSES),1947–48

  "That a sum, not exceeding£9,597 3s. 6d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1948.

  Schedule

  Class and Vote

  Expenditure over Estimate

  Appropriations in Aid

  Excess Votes

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Class II

  2.

  Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, &c.

  9,587

  3

  6

  —

  9,587

  3

  6

  Class VII

  6.

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  318,242

  11

  1

  318,232

  11

  1

  10

  0

  0

  Total Civil (Excesses)

  £9,597

  3

  6"

  Question put, and agrees to.

  £

  10.

  Surveys of Great Britain &c,

  187,540

  14.

  Roads, &c.

  1,000,000

  18.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  81,000

  19.

  State Management Districts

  10

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £9,597 3s. 6d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved:
  "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, the sum of £308,371,574 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved:
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £1,210,643,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT AGREEMENT)
  9.36 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport(Mr. Barnes): I beg to move,
  "That the Agreement, dated 21st February, 1949, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne, Limited, for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."
  The purpose of this agreement is to continue for the next three years the subsidy paid to the MacBrayne shipping company for the purpose of maintaining certain transport services in the Highlands and the Western Isles. At the commencement of my remarks I wish to state that it would be impossible for anybody, no matter on what basis it may be conducted, to perform these services without some direct subsidy, and this has been recognised by successive Governments. The first subsidy and the contract that flowed from it arose on a report of a Select Committee of this House, and a contract was carried through for 10 years, commencing in 1928. At the end of that contractual period a fresh agreement was signed in 1938 between the Minister of Transport, acting for the Government Departments concerned, and
  2408
  MacBrayne's, and that, too, was intended to run for another 10 years; but, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, the war frustrated that contract, and during the war the Ministry of Transport requisitioned the vessels of the MacBrayne company, as they did those of other shipping concerns.
  At the end of the war conditions were much too uncertain to be able to measure the elements that would enter into the cost of restoring these post-war services, so that on 30th June, 1947, I submitted to the House interim proposals, which were approved; and I later requested and secured approval to extend them to the end of 1948.
  In the meantime, it has been no easy matter, in view of the difficulties of assessing cost today, to determine the conditions of a long-term contract but the interim arrangement was based upon a method which I do not favour and I do not think it obtains very substantial support from any quarter of the House, namely, a cost-plus profit basis. I was, therefore, anxious that the Department responsible for negotiating these arrangements should depart from that temporary expedient and pass to a more businesslike agreement. It is true that we have preferred a much shorter period because of the uncertainties, which I indicated, in assessing on an accurate basis the elements concerned in the cost of services today, and although I do not pretend that the company would not have preferred a longer period, nevertheless they have met my request for a short period, and this agreement covers three years, subject to renewal or to ending by six months' notice.
  During the negotiations, I had to satisfy myself whether the post-war circumstances required any change from the pre-war arrangements, but I have been satisfied that the company can perform the service as economically and as efficiently as, and probably more so than, any other type of body that I could consider. It has a good deal of experience. In view of the passing of the Transport Act and the establishment of the Transport Commission, some hon. Members may feel that a better proposal on this occasion would be to charge the British Transport Commission with a responsibility of this character. However, I would state in reply to any suggestion

  2409
  of that description that I consider that at the present moment, and probably for some time to come, the British Transport Commission will be pre-occupied with much graver problems than carrying through these services to the Western Isles. [Interruption.] I do not consider that this is at all a matter for hilarity. It is purely a sensible business situation. The amount and the services involved should be borne in mind. Hon. Gentlemen ought to hear my arguments completed before making comments. Perhaps they are not aware of the fact that the British Transport Commission own 49 per cent. of the share capital of this concern, and that, as part of this arrangement, the Ministry of Transport appoints a director to the company, and a very good director, too, in the person of Sir Hector McNeill, the Lord Provost of Glasgow.
  This is a peculiar problem, however, and I am merely submitting an obvious and commonsense fact when I state that, when examining the problem of change, any Minister occupying my position would have to take into consideration that a service of this kind is better if it is built up on the long experience of those who have been associated with it. Hon. Members should not overlook the fact that tins body has never been able to run this service successfully on its own; it has always had to come to the State for a subsidy, and before the war the subsidy amounted to £60,000 a year.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: For carrying the mails?
  Mr. Barnes: No. the sum for carrying the mails in this contract is only £42,000. The total subsidy—if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will listen to my remarks—amounts to £240,000 The subsidy which the Government are proposing today is four times the subsidy paid before the war, namely, £60,000. So, looked at on the basis of being able to perform a service on their own strength and capacity there is nothing in which hon. Members can find any satisfaction or pride.
  There was a good deal of ridicule on the other side of the House when I was dealing with the purely business problem of whether the State paid nearly a quarter of a million pounds in subsidy to a public corporation or gave this large
  2410
  sum of public money to a public company. I submit that no person occupying the position of a Minister of State, and having to decide whether a grant of this kind should be made to a private company, should overlook the desirability or otherwise of charging with that task a body, on which Parliament has recently imposed certain responsibilities.
  I intended to go on to explain that eventually I come down on the side of continuing this subsidy to MacBraynes, large as it is, expensive as it is compared with pre-war, because I am satisfied, under the peculiar circumstances prevailing in that area. that there is no other company which could do the job better than they are doing at the present moment.
  One of the reasons why the subsidy has increased considerably in proportion to what it was before the war is that under this agreement there has been a considerable expansion in the services provided. Recently the MacBrayne Company has taken over the McCallum-Orme Shipping Company and will now be responsible for carrying out their services which formerly operated at a loss. The Company has already placed an order with the Ardrossan Dockyard Company for a new cargo ship, to supplement their fleet. They have purchased a further cargo vessel which they hope to have in service at the end of this month. From 28th March there will be a considerably improved service to Colonsay; instead of one call a week, there will be a service four times a week in summer from Colonsay to Islay—[Interruption.s] Hon. Members must be sympathetic to the fact that a Cockney is moving this Motion tonight, and I think my Scottish Friends will be more satisfied about getting the money than about any accuracy in my Scottish pronunciation. As I have said, this service will operate four times a week in summer and twice a week in winter. The company has extended its fleet considerably but I do not think I need go into details now.
  My main responsibility to the House is to explain the financial arrangements between the Ministry and the company. There is inserted in the agreement an arrangement which we consider will be an inducement to the company to run the service as efficiently as possible. Apart from the £240,000 direct subsidy, public

  2411
  funds will bear or receive one-half of the first £15,000 of any deficiency or profit and the whole of any further deficiency or profit, as the case may be. If there is a surplus profit of up to £15,000—after the 3½ per cent. interest on the capital of the company, or £25,000, which represents their profit elesment, whichever is the larger—has been met, the company and the Ministry of Transport will each take half of the first £15,000 additional profit. If there is a loss of £15,000 below those figures, then, again, the Ministry and the company will bear half each.
  The net effect of this arrangement is a financial inducement to the company to exert every effort towards economy, and works out something like this. Under this arrangement it would be possible for the company to pay as much as 4½ per cent. on their capital employed in the undertaking. On the other hand, if they fail to make a success of the arrangement, their rate of interest, as far as it is ultimately guaranteed by this arrangement, could fall to 2½ per cent. Therefore, whether their shareholders receive 2½ per cent. or 4½ per cent. on the capital employed depends very largely on the exertions which the company make. I consider this to be a very desirable inducement to efficiency and economy.
  With regard to fares and charges, I would remind hon. Members that this subsidy is absorbed in the reduction of passenger fares and cargo rates. It is true that in recent times increases in rates and fares have been imposed to the extent of 55 per cent. above the rates in operation at the outbreak of war. The general run of fares and cargo rates on these services, however, works out at only roughly about one-third of the rates in operation on cross-Channel steamers, and are much less than the current transports rates between this country and Ireland. So when hon. Members are thinking in terms of the extent of the subsidy they should bear in mind that it goes not only for the purpose of carrying His Majesty's mails, but in directly benefiting the citizens of these islands and facilitating traffic between the islands and the mainland.
  I have had tonight to present the case for the agreement I have negotiated with the company, but I have not considered
  2412
  that because I have justified that agreement I should assume the position of defending the MacBrayne Shipping Company. What I wish to make plain is that, seeking a transport agency to do this job, I can see no instrument to which I could turn at present that would represent a less subsidy figure than I am proposing tonight. Whatever hon. Members may, or may not, feel about an issue of that description, I do not want any hon. Member to overlook the fact that to run a service under a subsidy—and anybody would need to have a subsidy —is liable to a type and strength of criticism not normally directed to undertakings working under fair competitive trading conditions. That ought to be taken into consideration when one is examining or judging the comparable efficiency, or otherwise, of this company.
  They are doing a very essential piece of work in a very difficult area of Scotland. I think I can say without hesitation that, our experience of this company—which runs over roughly 30 years—is that those who navigate these ships have and must of necessity have a very high standard of navigational skill. The conditions in this part of our islands require a good deal of courage, energy, steadiness and effort to perform these tasks. Therefore, having decided that they are the best body at the moment, I think it only right that the House, whether they care to praise or criticise this agreement, should at least acknowledge that, under the circumstances, this company and its staff are doing a fairly good job in a very difficult area.
  9.59 p.m.
  Major McCallum: I was not quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said with what levity he was charging my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Was it that he considered the possibility of handing over this service to the Transport Commission, or that he had decided that it should be retained by the MacBrayne Company? I am sure that no hon. Member on this side, or in any part of the House, treats this matter of the steamship services on the West Coast of Scotland as a matter of levity. When the Minister said just now that the masters and navigators of these vessels were navigating in dangerous waters, it was very much an understatement. They are probably the most dangerous waters.

  2413
  at any rate in the Northern Hemisphere, around the coasts of Europe.s
  It is now nearly two years since we debated the last agreement with the same company. At that time we were considering an agreement granting a subsidy to the company of £128,000, slightly less than half the sum which is in question tonight, and as the Minister said, four times the amount of the subsidy which was drawn by the company in 1939. I rather gathered from the Minister that he seemed to think that the necessity for that enormously increased subsidy was the fault of the management of this private enterprise firm. Surely it is the ever-increasing rise in the cost of everything that brings about this necessity of granting this much higher amount?
  The steamer service to the West Highlands and Islands is one which cannot be compared with any other competitive steamship service run by a British concern because it is really a social service which is run to serve sparsely populated islands. Such a service is bound to be expensive. The mere fact of having to run these ships for a few hundred people on various islands cannot be otherwise than expensive no matter what concern tries to run them. The needs of these areas are as great as ever, possibly more so, for it is true to say from the evidence of the latest figures issued in Edinburgh that the population of the Highlands and Islands is at last very slightly on the increase. As the increase which we hope to see develop to much greater proportions comes about so will the demand on these services become greater. We look forward to the day which I am afraid I shall not live to see when these steamer services will be a paying concern because there will be such a volume of traffic on them, but the movement which has begun in the last year or two is at any rate all to the good.
  I wish to say one or two things about these services included in this Agreement. I was extremely glad to hear from the Minister the announcement which we have for many months been waiting to hear of the sailing of the "Lochiel" from Port Askaig in Islay to Colonsay four times a week in summer and twice a week in winter, I am glad to say. I have pressed for that for many years. We were told that it was impossible, dangerous, that it could not be
  2414
  done, that the Board of Trade would not allow it. I give the Minister my heartfelt gratitude on his at last having decided that it can be done. I am sure he will be accorded the utmost gratitude of the inhabitants of the Isle of Colonsay.
  In the last week or two various hon. Members and Ministers have had meetings with the company in respect of these various services. Those of us who represent the areas served by the company have put forward our complaints, and the company have themselves done their best to meet us. I know that it is quite true that the claim has been put forward that this winter from last November until now has, from the point of view of shipping, been the worst in living memory. We know that in such circumstances the company cannot always keep up to schedule with their services.
  I am also sure that the Minister will appreciate that if he was living on one of these islands, and if the boat did not come and leave his mail or rations, he would feel a little sore about it no matter what the weather was like. He will not be surprised therefore if through the representatives of this House he has received what might be thought to be unreasonable complaints, but when the circumstances are brought to the minds of those constituents I think they realise that even McBrayne cannot deal with the weather. We feel, even in spite of the great importance that has been drawn to this service in the last few weeks there are still a few items on the administrative side which could yet be tightened up. I would only quote two services, one a cargo service to the Ross of Mull, the west end of the Island of Mull.
  I was glad to hear from the Minister that, although perhaps not new, fresh cargo boats are coming into the service which will replace boats such as the "Lochshiel" which today run on that service to the Western part of the Isle of Mull. I have said some hard things about some of the ships voyaging on the services in previous Debates and I shall not repeat them, but the "Lochshiel" can be included with what I have said before. The advent of the new vessel, the "Loch Seaforth" did mean that the "Loch Ness" was able to be put on the service running out of Oban which has

  2415
  given a very much accelerated service. I said in a previous Debate on this subject that the result of that transfer has been a greatly improved service. I was immediately taken to task by many people living on the Islands who said there was no improvement whatsoever and that even the "Loch Ness" was slow running and late. I have explained that owing to the winter weather even the "Loch Ness" could not make it, and she is an extremely good boat. I am glad to see the McCallum Orme Company taken over. Since McBrayne's took over the company the "Dunara" and "Challenger"s have been scrapped. I only hope it will not be many more months before the "Hebrides" goes the same way. They are not fit boats for a passenger service on any service at all let alone in these Islands.
  I should like to add my words in expressing admiration that we all feel, especially through this last winter, for the courage and courtesy and efficiency not only of the masters and men, but also the stewardesses on the boats. They did their job as well as anybody else. Although we may grumble at the company and the Minister we all feel admiration for the way the personnel carried out their job.
  I understand that the company have a policy in future of shutting down a number of their calls to the less important ports and substituting road deliveries from a more central pier or harbour. I consider that to be a move in the right direction which will result in the speeding up of the delivery of cargoes and the like. But it does not always meet with satisfaction on the Islands or in the districts concerned. I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that where these sea-going services are curtailed in favour of land services the freight charges levied on goods transported will be no more than they would have been had they been carried by water. The fact that many of them are to be transferred to road services has caused anxiety in that direction.
  Whenever we meet them—and I understand the motive although I do not agree with it—the MacBrayne company always say, "We cannot understand why everybody in the Highlands is not satisfied with MacBrayne's because, after all, MacBrayne's are the Highlands." It is true
  2416
  that they run the steamer services, many of the bus services, and that now they run this goods service by lorry. Before the war they had a holding, I think, in Scottish Airways. They had something to do with the air service. In recent months in other parts of the country we have seen developments in regard to air services.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister might be able to charge MacBrayne's with carrying out experiments with a feeder service on the West Coast between the mainland and the Islands by helicopter. I know that the Secretary of State will tell me that is impossible. I consider that it is possible for experiments to be carried out, I do not say with passengers but with mail—dummy mail if preferred. The helicopter would serve as a marvellous feeder service to the boats from the inaccessible islands to the ports which the boats can reach. This question was raised recently at a meeting in London and we were told that there was not a hope of any such development within five years. That is a defeatist outlook. Experiments with helicopters are being made by the Navy, the Army and the Post Office. Surely, the Post Office could help in the delivery of their mails by urging and perhaps assisting MacBrayne's to carry out experiments with helicopters in this area. I hope that the Minister will realise that his announcement about the Colonsay service will cause great satisfaction in a large part of my constituency.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: This is an occasion on which we can only say "Yes" or "No." We cannot amend. I always think it is a misfortune that before a decision is taken we are not able to suggest improvements which could be put into operation. That is not possible. Since no Amendment is possible at this stage, no improvement is feasible and obviously no advice will be taken. Therefore, we are talking round and round something which, to a large extent, has been decided already. Certain things can be done administratively by MacBrayne's once the contract is through and the money is voted, but it is obvious that not many fundamental changes have been provided for, nor are they to be made for at least three years.
  I could not quite agree with the Minister of Transport when he said that the

  2417
  only agency he could conceive which could carry out these services efficiently and sufficiently well was MacBrayne's. There is the agency of the Transport Commission. At the time when the Transport Bill was before the Standing Committee, the Minister undertook to draw the attention of the Commission to the possibility—without discussing the merits of the case—of taking over the MacBrayne steamer service by agreement. One can bring a good deal of pressure to bear when one can tell the party whom one is inviting to agree that the Treasury can either starve him or permit him to live. MacBrayne's continue to flourish by the goodwill of the Treasury and Parliament.
  I cannot imagine that any great difficulties would arise in the matter of achieving control and ownership of MacBrayne's. I will not press that point now because it is obvious that the Ministry of Transport and the Commission are not prepared, or are not ready, for technical and other reasons, to take over MacBrayne's and to nationalise them. They are, I believe, ripe for nationalisation, just as were our other steamer services which have been taken over and integrated with the railways into our transport services. When the proper time comes, I do not think the Minister should continue on the lines of the argument which he has advanced tonight. I think that attitude is a little defeatist when we are thinking of transport in terms of nationalisation and a nationalised service. Even now, for all the arguments he advanced, MacBrayne's is being run as a profit service, and the profit is the one thing that is guaranteed at all times, whether the weather is good or bad. I am not going to criticise the masters and crew, or, to much extent, the management, in so far as the operation of the service is concerned, because in very difficult circumstances they have continued, throughout the war and since, with a shortage of ships and various other difficulties, to give the best service that is possible under the present arrangement. But I am not going to accept that that arrangement is the best we can have.
  It is time that the Minister drew the attention of the Transport Commission as forcibly as possible to the possibility of taking over that service and making it
  2418
  a part of the national transport services. This matter affects a wider field than MacBrayne's. It was a favourite comment of at least one director of MacBrayne's that "MacBrayne's are the Highlands and Islands," and the second comment which was generally made was "We like to do all we can to help the Highlands and Islands," which is one way of saying, "We like to help ourselves." While I wish to be fair to MacBrayne's, I do not accept that that service is by any means adequate for the people of the Western Highlands and Islands. It is far from that. What it would cost to give an adequate service I do not know, but it would probably cost considerably more money than we are allowing for in this Vote tonight.
  But we have other considerations besides the financial ones. The voting of this money is in itself a recognition that the people in that area—the Western Highlands and Islands—are an integral part of the British Isles, and that it is desirable, and the Government's policy, to maintain the population in that area. In fact, that has been stated by every Government which I have either opposed or supported for the last 30 years in this House. Beyond that, I am afraid they did not carry it very much further in the matter of transport services for the Western Highlands and Islands. There have been few improvements in the Services in the last three or four years, apart from a new steamer on the Stornoway-Kyle route and the transfer of an old steamer to a route where there was an even worse one before.
  Sixty years ago, the people of the Islands had a daily service. We are told that this is impossible today, because of the cost of supplying it, and I am prepared to say that MacBrayne's could not economically provide that service today. I do not think one could argue that it would be possible, but there are other responsibilities upon MacBrayne's. They are responsible for road services as well, and there we find them up against the impossibility of running adequate road services at an economic rate unless they have better roads throughout the Islands and along the West Coast of the Highlands on which their bus services run. Again, it is difficult not to feel some restraint in criticising MacBrayne's when

  2419
  we think of the sort of roads with which we are all familiar in the Highlands and Islands.
  It is quite obvious that the MacBrayne Company intend to discontinue the local calls at some of the smaller places. They have already done that in some places. It is vitally important to the survival of some of these communities where the steamer calls have been discontinued, or will be discontinued, that there should be an adequate road service, and an adequate delivery of the goods formerly carried by MacBrayne's. That cannot be done unless the Ministry of Transport provide, or help to provide, together with the county councils, suitable roads along which a modern transport service of passengers and freight can be run.
  I urge upon the Minister of Transport, upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, and upon the Treasury the vital importance of roads as well as steamer services in the Highlands and Islands. Good transport is the lifeblood of the whole economic rehabilitation of the North-West. I think that hon. Members on all sides and certainly all Highland Members have long realised this. Every Highland local authority knows that it is no use providing great schemes of hydro-electrical development if these benefits are going to be cancelled out by bad transport and costly and irregular transport. We shall never get industries into the area until the Ministry of Transport and all those responsible for transport improvement really get down to the job of providing better roads, bridges where they are necessary between the islands, and, generally, a modern transport service by sea and road as well as by air.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) made a very impressive speech when he first came to this House. He advocated the nationalisation of MacBrayne's. It was a most impressive speech, and one which I thought he had learned from a gramophone record which I have played so many times to this House. The record is now a bit cracked and becomes very tiresome to myself, to Ministers and to hon. Members. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman is beginning to slide back a little now that the possibility of nationalisation hovers over private enterprise.
  2420
  I invite him to come back to what he advocated in his maiden speech in his pristine purity as an hon. Member representing the Highlands and Islands, and before he was contaminated by the Tories.
  I ask the Minister of Transport to make at least a token start with his many transport schemes, into which the MacBrayne service is to fit as well, as soon as possible. A hundred small things done now throughout the Highlands and Islands where the people are all so dependent on these services would do far more than all our long-term planning to give heart to the people, to retain the population, and to give them hope that in our time we shall see a substantial measure of economic prosperity in that area. We are not asking this simply as a gift to the Highlands and Islands for, unless we develop transport and give them a modern system of communications, we are going to have them perpetually coming to this House, dependent upon what hon Members have sometimes called the dole and charity, and perpetually dependent on partial aid from the Treasury.
  Cannot we get down to a definite transport policy for the Highlands and Islands, a definite programme which we can put into operation now in order to enable them to stand on their own feet and make their contribution to the country which they would like to make? MacBraynes is certainly a vitally important service to the Highlands and Islands, and no one can seriously contemplate voting tonight against making this money available for the service.
  I wish to finish by paying my tribute to the Post Office service. During the last few years, and, indeed, throughout all the years, the Post Office have done magnificent work throughout the Highlands and Islands. During the post-war period, they have tried to help in every way they could. First, they provided airway services, which we never had before, and they speeded up the mail services throughout the area. I appeal to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to do everything they can to help the Post Office to do what they wish to do. Everything depends on the Ministry of Transport, because as I have said, transport is the life-blood of the High, lands and Islands.

  2421
  I hope the Minister will not go home content with the fact that the House has said "Aye." Tonight we must say "Aye," but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not go home thinking he has escaped once more and can rest content with that. Many people are hoping to go home tonight in the Islands, but are probably being held up at Oban, or miserably delayed at Benbecula, trying to get a steamer.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. MacLeod: I do not intend to be drawn into the controversy about whether this service should have a subsidy or not, or whether it should be nationalised or not, but I recognise that this service is, to a certain extent, a social service. Before the House approves this Agreement, there is one problem of grave importance that I should like to bring to its attention and to the notice of the Government. It arises in paragraph 6 of the Schedule, the Stornaway service, and concerns the unsatisfactory state of the services and communications of the people of Apple-cross in my constituency. The Minister of Transport is aware that a grant has been refused to provide a road around the north coast of Applecross. It is my contention that some service of some kind or another must be given to the people of this region. Until such a road is provided which will link up with other roads to open up the whole of the western seaboard of Scotland, and until the Minister of Transport makes a survey to this end, we shall not have satisfactory communications in this region.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the appalling conditions existing in Applecross under the present steamer services. Let us take the case of somebody wanting to leave Applecross for the Kyle of Lochalsh, as stated in the Schedule, between November and April. This is what he has to undergo. He leaves Applecross at 3.15 p.m. and gets into a small open ferry boat to join the steamer—that is, if the steamer calls at all. Frequently, because of the westerly gales. it has been known to pass on three consecutive days. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know on how many days this winter it has passed. Provided, then, that the passenger reaches the steamer, he must cross the Minch to Stornaway,
  2422
  and re-cross the Minch, to arrive at Lochalsh at 4.30 the following morning—that is, having left at 3 o'clock the previous afternoon. Now, it is a distance of only 12 miles, but a trip of 112 miles has to be undertaken, lasting more than 13 hours. Surely the Minister must agree that this is very deplorable. I wonder whether such hardships exist on any other service anywhere on the mainland?
  Today, coincidentally, I received a letter from one of my constituents. This is what he says:
  "It is clear"—
  he is referring at this point to roads—
  "that these must remain as they are for the present. It is altogether most disheartening. To add to the misery of living on the north coast of Applecross, I have just heard from a resident there that the two local shops are about to close down. The owners have decided to give up the struggle to get food and other supplies against such difficulties. This means that there will be no source of supply for the coast people on the 33 miles from Toscaig to Applecross. How arc they to live, is the question uppermost in my mind at the moment. The able-bodied may be able to make for Toscaig or Applecross, but what is to become of the aged and infirm? I need not enlarge on the difficulties which I foresee for this community, but I should like you to use your influence in whatever direction you can see fit to bring the position to the notice of the powers that be, who should be keenly concerned with the people's welfare."
  I have written to the Secretary of State, who, I understand, has been in communication with the Minister of Transport and the Postmaster-General, proposing a service between Toscaig and Kyle. I will not weary the House with this scheme, but I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure me tonight that further consideration will be given to this scheme, and, if not, will he propose something better? I contend that unless something is done immediately to improve these services, Messrs. MacBrayne can leave out of their service from Kyle to Stornoway the call at Applecross, because if this situation continues, there will be too few people to make a service worth while.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. Randall: This Agreement apparently continues what has been going on for the last three generations—namely, the subsidy to MacBrayne's. In listening to the Debate tonight and having regard to the Debates, which I have read, of 1921, the early part of 1928

  2423
  and the latter part of 1928, I must say that my right hon. Friend's statement was a very sad echo of those Debates, in which Members of my party, sitting on the Opposition benches, voiced very strongly their view that a suitable and successful service would be possible only when we brought in the experience of the workers in MacBrayne's and used it for the benefit of the country. They voiced the view that MacBrayne's should be taken over as a public service.
  I want to express my disappointment that once again we are to make this subsidy to MacBrayne's. I hazard the guess that over the years the total sum that has been paid into this company must already have exceeded £1 million. I should be happy if my right hon. Friend could give the approximate total sum which has been paid to this firm. I believe the House is interested and I am sure that the public at large is interested, particularly in view of all the fuss and bother earlier this evening about a matter of £80,000. I do not believe that this subsidy has given to the Islands the economic independence to which they are entitled.
  I do not believe it has made the Islands available to the people of the country as it ought to have done. I think that a fair amount of the money has been paid out in dividends, and that has meant the limitation of services for the people in the Outer Hebrides. I express my disappointment that we have not had an opportunity of discussing the possibilities of the British Transport Commission taking over the services. I recognise that this question is vital to the Outer Hebrides. During the war I was over there and I had an opportunity of meeting these good folk, the crofters. They are a proud race, a grand race, rich in many things, particularly on the cultural side; but they are poor, very poor, because of their lack of communications over so many years. To some extent I believe this House has been responsible, because it has not fulfilled its responsibility as it ought to have done. I repeat that I am disappointed.
  I want specifically to refer to the conveyance of mails. I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General upon the excellent work he has done since the
  2424
  present Government came into office. In Lochmaddy and North Uist, as a result of the work of the present Postmaster-General, there are now 19 full-time posts among the postmen, whereas orginally there were three. That is in Lochmaddy alone, and I want to congratulate the Postmaster-General. But I also want to criticise the mail services. In doing so, I wish to make the point that the disabilities to which I am about to refer must continue for another three years because of the contract which is now before the House.
  To get an idea of the work in the Outer Hebrides, one must get rid of preconceived ideas drawn from seeing postmen making deliveries in London or in provincial towns. The postmen in the Outer Hebrides have not got just a bag over their shoulders, nor have they roads and streets to walk along, or a nice garden path and a door with a knocker and a convenient letter box. They have something very different. For three days in the week, because of parcels coming from the mainland, the deliveries are exceedingly heavy. Most of the shopping of the crofters is done on the mainland through the cash-on-delivery system, and most of their rations come from the mainland. Some of the postmen take out loads of from 94 to 137 lbs. They may be out on deliveries for from four and a half hours to something like six hours and fifty minutes. It is no good saying that it ought to be possible to arrange a limitation of the weight. That is not possible in the Outer Hebrides. They have to take the weight out.
  The postmen recognise it on their side; the Post Office recognises it also. As a result, the postmen have to be paid an excessive weight allowance. They go out like mules, often travelling over bog in blistering Arctic winds and driving rain; often going into parts of the Islands where it would be dangerous to take even a horse. They wend their way heavily laden like mules. This is brought about because of the contract which we have with MacBrayne's, and it could be remedied if only the Post Office would institute air-mail services. For the letter side, airmail services have been introduced. It ought to be possible for such services to be instituted to deal with this heavy parcels traffic. For the postmen in the Outer Hebrides that would be a real contribution

  2425
  to their work. I criticise the contract because it will not bring alleviation to these men. It will not lighten their task or their burden. They must carry on for another three years. It is no argument that we must continue the contract because of the delivery of the mails. Better delivery could be given by air-mail services.
  There is one short point I wish to mention in regard to the road services. I understand that MacBrayne's are still regarded as motor contractors, and that the Agreement proposes to continue that arrangement. I want to put a specific question; I want to know whether the Agreement precludes the substitution of contract vans by official vans. Many of these old MacBrayne vans are used, nut only for passengers, but also for mails. Let us think of the Newton Ferry service from Lochmaddy. For a long time this has screamed out for improvement, and a request was made for an official van to be provided, but the reply was that there is a subsidy for the post service, and that, secondly, there is the necessity of conserving manpower and petrol. Those may be very good reasons, but the public have also asked about a passenger 'bus. The old 'bus of MacBrayne's still continues and is giving a bad service; apparently, because of the subsidy and the contract, it is not possible to have a Post Office van in place of the MacBrayne van.
  I hope that before long it will be possible to hear a statement in this House that this service is to be taken over by British Railways. I believe that is the best service which could be given. We could take over all the workers who are on the job at present, so that that question would not arise; but if we are to open these Islands to the public, something of that sort should be done. It ought to be possible to open up these Islands in such a way that it would be an economically sound proposition for the nation, and a benefit to the working people who would like to visit them.
  10.42 p.m.
  Captain Marsden: I thought that I should be the only one who is not a Western Islander, or Western Highlander, to speak in this Debate, but the hon. Member who has just spoken is also from other parts. I thought that the Minister of Transport was inclined to be very apologetic about this contract
  2426
  with MacBrayne's. He should, I think, be very proud to have done so well; and I think that he should consider himself very lucky to have MacBrayne's available for this essential service. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) spoke about the £l million which MacBrayne's have had over the last twenty or thirty years; but, of course, they have had nothing like that. Whatever they have had, we must not forget what they have done for it during all that period, except for a period during the war. They have kept up the service. Do not let us think that this subsidy is just to help a leaky vessel which could not be kept going without it. They have kept the Islands open to everybody.
  Mr. Willis: They would not have kept up the service without the subsidy.
  Captain Marsden: They run a service four days a week in the Summer and twice a week in the winter, and they have to sail whether there is a passenger on board or not. They keep the job going, and the only thing which stops them, as the Minister has admitted, is the weather. If these captains and crews and these MacBrayne ships cannot sail, there is nobody in the world who will sail these stormy passages, especially in the winter season.
  But apart from that, the Minister said the freight charges were a third of the normal service, and if it was not for the subsidy MacBrayne's would have to charge the full amount to make up the subsidy to themselves. But they have it, and everybody gets the benefit of paying only one-third of what the charge would normally be. The Minister has done well, and I would remind him that if he put on a nationalised service, more than £240,000 a year would have to be expended. By all the indications from every nationalised transport service so far, we should not make a profit. We should make a loss. I am encouraged by one little arrangement in this contract, that if there is a profit of £15,000 the Government, which is ourselves, of course, are to get a share of that. That is the incentive motive which can not be pushed too strongly, and I am glad the Minister approves of that.
  The Minister's position is a peculiar one. He represents, first, the Government

  2427
  to the extent of 49 per cent. of the capital, and then goes into another department and gets a subsidy of £240,000 a year for a company he half owns; and if there is £15,000 profit he comes away with £7,500. It needs a lot of planning when one has that sort of position. I feel everybody will approve of this contract but let us not forget MacBrayne's, the shipping company, who carry it through. I repeat that I thought the Minister was apologetic. In this he need not be. He ought to be proud of the fact that we have private enterprise companies like this right round the coast to do this work. I hope that hon. Members will agree to subsidise the company; otherwise we shall be paying enormous sums of money for something not half so effective. As far as I am concerned, I support this contract, and instead of going for three years the Minister ought to have been prevailed upon to make it for ten years right away.
  10.46 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: Those hon. Members on this side, including the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden), who have some little knowledge of the kind of weather which the MacBrayne service has to face in carrying out these duties, will I am sure join wholeheartedly with the Minister in paying a tribute to the officers and crews who man these ships. I know from my own experience that—speaking in the way the Air Force speak —the conditions there are very bumpy on numerous occasions.
  I feel that sufficient credit has not been given to the Minister tonight for the Agreement which he has so skilfully drawn. I believe it is as good an agreement as could possibly be framed. It is both "stick" and "carrot" in its composition and despite what hon. Members opposite have said, I do not believe that any nationalised service could give any better service at the price than this service, under this Agreement, has agreed to give to the people of the Highlands at the present time. I think it is almost a model agreement. I cannot think how it could be made very much better. It seems that the Minister participates in the first £15,000 profit and also in everything beyond £15,000, and we can only hope that the time is not far distant when the
  2428
  prosperity of the Highlands will increase to such an extent that more than £15,000 will be made. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will join with me in that hope.
  One or two suggestions have been made in regard to certain improvements in the service and I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) in appealing to the Minister to make absolutely certain that where some of the services are discontinued—as is the intention, I understand—to see that road services are substituted for those discontinued services, and with a reasonable frequency. To enable that to be done. as the hon. Member for the Western Isles pointed out, something will have to be done in connection with the roads. I hope that the Minister of Transport will see that something is done in that direction.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) that great work is done by the postmen of the Western Isles, and if he can induce someone to introduce an air-mail service he will, I am sure, earn the gratitude of the hon. Member for the Western Isles and his constituents as well. In the meantime we appreciate the work these men are doing for the good of the community. I heartily endorse what the Minister said in connection with the Agreement, and I hope the House will accept it tonight.
  10.51 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): If I might intervene for one moment, I should like to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) when he asked a question as to whether anything in the contract precluded the Post Office from using its own vans for the conveyance of mail. I can categorically state that the answer is "No." So far as mail conveyance by planes is concerned, we are using all commercial routes for first-class mail. So far as the conveyance of parcels by airmail is concerned, that would involve several planes and, quite frankly, the cost would be prohibitive.
  There was one point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) with regard to helicopters. We are experimenting with the use of

  2429
  helicopters on the East Anglian plains. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member knows that there is all the difference in the world between the East Anglian plains and conditions in the Western Isles. We will consider the matter in the light of the results of the experiments which are taking place.
  Major McCallum: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one pilot carrying out these experiments in East Anglia is a Western Highlander and says he is capable of flying over the water?
  Mr. Hobson: That may be so. That is the opinion of an individual. We appreciate it and will take it into account, but the main point is that we shall consider the results of all the experiments when they are concluded.
  Mr. Randall: Does my hon. Friend say that if a subsidy of £42,000 or £45,000 were given to an air service, the cost would still be prohibitive?
  Mr. Hobson: At present, if we used air services for the carriage of mail it would involve several planes and the cost would be prohibitive. I think my hon. Friend is putting a hypothetical question.
  10.53 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland(Mr. Woodburn): We have had a very interesting Debate and I think there has been a definite change in tone from the many previous Debates we have had with regard to the MacBrayne contract. The change has been for the better. I think that behind many remarks there is some misunderstanding of the nature of the subsidy.
  In the Western Isles a boat sailing across these channels is simply a travelling ferry. The question is whether it is a toll ferry or a free ferry. In this case they are not free nor are the tolls completely economic. The Government are making the tolls, or charges, capable of being paid by the people in the Islands and are making a contribution to reduce the price of tolls, so that the people can make use of the boats. There seems to be an idea that this is a gift to MacBrayne's. This is a contribution to the making of transport facilities in the same way as the Government makes a contribution to the making of roads. These are
  roads over the water just as
  2430
  the others are roads over the hills. When we come to the question of Applecross, it is economic to make the road run by water rather than over the mountains. The cost of making a road over the mountains would provide for many subsidies for all the transport done by these boats.
  Major McCallum: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will make a road over the water to Applecross?
  Mr. Woodburn: I was coming to that. One of the difficulties about transport in the Highlands is that one is dealing with nature in the raw. I remember, with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) not being able to get to Applecross one day. They offered to bring a snow-plough to get us over the mountain road—the highest road in Britain. Failing that we had to sail in a fishing boat running from Toscaig and back. This was a difficult matter especially as, late on a dark night, we had to go about three miles to a little village, and over cobbles to a rowing boat and then sail out to a fishing boat and board it. I have had some experience of Apple-cross, and when we consider all the storms and rough weather there, it is not possible to guarantee access by road or by sea at all times. I am afraid that must be a handicap for the people living at Applecross, although we will do all we can to make it easier and lighter. One of the difficulties is the danger that would arise for a boat calling in the dark, and it is necessary for us to accept the geographical limitations on sea transport in many of these places.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll asked me about Mull, and whether the freight charges would be approximately the same if the delivery were made by road instead of by direct boat. The proposal by Messrs. MacBrayne is that if cargo is delivered at Tobermory, the port for the island, the freight charges to the different parts of the island would be no more than they are by water.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Islands raised several questions and suggested that this was a fixed Agreement. I would call his attention to the services set out in this Agreement, both in respect of cargo and passengers. There is a flexibility in them. The services

  2431
  can be increased or decreased as the occasion arises. I think he was pessimistic about the boats. The company has bought several new vessels, as well as motor vessels and others. They have new cargo vessels coming along and I am sure these will bring a better service especially as some of the older boats have been re-engined. Though it is not possible to make a perfect service to part of the Western Islands this will be extended.
  The question was also raised about this company being a profit-making concern, and it was suggested that the State was providing a profit for Messrs. MacBrayne. I do not think this service in itself is a profit-making one, and I should imagine that it has lost money ever since its inception. It can only carry traffic of this kind with a Government subsidy. One of the boats may have more than 1,000 packages and parcels on board and the freight charge would be about 1s. 6d. If one can imagine the clerical work involved in connection with the manifests, it is easy to see there can be no economic success for a service of that kind. It is like the Post Office which makes a fine profit overall but may lose in delivering 1d. or 2½d. letters to any part of these Islands. Obviously it cannot be an economic service everywhere.
  The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod), who has had to leave, raised the question of Toscaig. We are exploring the matter of building a jetty there at a cost of £10,000 with the county council, and we shall do what we can. I think the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) was under the same misapprehension that we were handing out profits to Messrs. MacBrayne. They will get an interest on the money so that, as has been said, there is here a little carrot and a little stick. This is an inducement. It has always been the policy of the Government even in time of war to say that if a person did well he got a little more. After all, if we agreed to payments by results in the case of the workers. We cannot object to payment by results for the people who are running steamer services. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made an excellent agreement, such as it is.
  2432
  Many hon. Members have said that this service should be brought under complete public control. That is a possibility and a matter that may be argued, but there is no possibility of doing that at the moment. The practical test is to get the thing going until such time as the community makes up its mind how eventually it will run the service. The Minister has made an Agreement for three years, during which many other things will have settled down, and we shall be in a better position to judge just how we should proceed.
  I want to conclude by paying a tribute to the men and women who are carrying on the life of the community in the Western Isles. It is not only the postmen who carry parcels over long roads. The crofters carry their provisions over those long roads. But the Minister of Transport and the Government have not stopped the work on the crofter roads. The Highlands are being developed, and I was glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll mentioned the fact that there is a change of outlook in the Highlands, and that the Highlands are now looking forward to some kind of prosperity. I hope we shall all be able to make some contribution towards building up the facilities which make life decent and worth while in that beautiful part of our country.
  Resolved:
  "That the Agreement, dated 21st February, 1949, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne, Limited, for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Bullingdon, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Pen ybont, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved."—[Mr.
  Younger.]

  EASTERN EUROPE (RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Bowden.]
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: When I balloted for this subject on the Adjournment some 10 days ago, I was not aware of the very important and serious statement which the Minister of State was to make to the House at the end of Question time yesterday. But notwithstanding that statement, I do not think it any less necessary, indeed it is more topical, that I should pursue the subject, if only for a few minutes, tonight.
  Much of the indictment contained in the statement of the Minister of State about Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania was already known to hon. Members of this House in broad outline, but I think all hon. Members who heard it were deeply impressed and pained by the long catalogue of utter violations by each of these three ex-enemy countries, as well as by the Minister's categorical assertions that they had all been made possible by the open connivance and assistance of Soviet Russia. I do not propose tonight to say anything at all about the violations either of the military or the economic clauses in the Treaties, although it is clear that this country has very great cause to complain of those breaches. But serious as they are, I think that public opinion in this country at the present time is most deeply incensed and indignant—and I think rightly so—at the gross violation of tile clauses that were made for protecting human rights, and perhaps, in particular, at the increasing restrictions that are placed on religious freedom in all of those three countries.
  The House will recall that each of the Treaties guarantees all persons without discrimination as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights, the fundamental freedoms including freedom of expression, of Press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of political meeting. Moreover, Article 4 of the Treaty with Bulgaria recites that Bulgaria has taken measures for dissolving all organisations of a Fascist type on Bulgarian territory as well as other organisations conducting propaganda hostile to the United Nations,
  2434
  and shall not permit in future the existence and activities of organisations of that nature which have as their aim the denial to the people of their democratic rights.
  It is a very sad reflection that during the short space of 18 months since that Treaty was signed there has been such a complete and total disregard of those basic provisions. In the short discussion which took place yesterday afternoon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) asked for further evidence to be given of religious persecution, and some of the evidence is in accordance with the undertaking of the Minister of State printed in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT at col. 2127.
  I should like, if the House will allow me, to give quite shortly some further evidence showing that
  "the calculated diminution"—
  I am using the words of the Minister of State—
  "of the influence of the Christian Churches is an integral part of the totalitarian plan for establishing a Communist monopoly of thought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2121.]
  It means that there can be no doubt that there is complete suppression of religious liberty.
  I am not dealing tonight with the persecution of political minorities—that is bad enough—but I am dealing with the persecution of religious minorities as such. These ex-enemy Communist countries are, as has been said, engaging in a deliberate and avowed campaign aimed at stamping out all religious freedom. It is clear that this is a calculated part of Communist policy from the documents which are published, for example, by the Bulgarian authorities themselves. Secret orders aimed at the persecution of Evangelicals in Bulgaria were issued by the Communist Central Headquarters in Sofia as long ago as January, 1948.
  The Bulgarian Press Service in London has denied the existence of these secret orders and challenged proof. A friend of mine has actually seen the document itself in the original Bulgarian text as brought out of Bulgaria. Obviously I cannot give any further details since one of the objects of the Bulgarian challenge is to try and get evidence to incriminate the person who brought it out, or his relatives.

  2435
  These secret orders were followed in June, 1948, by a circular letter to all Church leaders ordering them, among other things to preach that the State stands above the Church, to refrain from criticisms of the Government to support all Government measures, to require all pastors and priests to join the Fatherland Front, and counteract from the pulpit all anti-Communist propaganda. Following this directive squads from the Communist Party visited the pastors in their homes and insisted, under pressure of threats, that they should join the party. Some 30 or 40 were imprisoned after their answers. Families had been visited and questioned with a view to obtaining accusations and statements.
  The trial of the 15 Protestant pastors, all of whom had been imprisoned for over six months, has already been widely reported, but I doubt if its significance is fully appreciated. Bulgaria is predominantly Catholic. Of its population of 7 million, 6 million belong to the Orthodox Church. The rest are mostly Moslems, and there are about 50,000 Roman Catholics and 16,000 Protestants. It is this relatively small number of Protestants who have been singled out for this savage persecution. There were, according to a Bulgarian Press statement, 138 Protestant pastors in Bulgaria altogether administering to the spiritual needs of these 16,000 Protestants.
  They could have no possible political significance. Their only offence in the eyes of the Communist leaders was that as Protestants they had in the past had associations and links with persons outside Bulgaria holding similar religious views. These 15 leaders who have now been sentenced to terms of imprisonment were drawn from a variety of denominations, including Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Adventists, and so forth. Their conviction was only made possible in any sense by their so-called confessions. In case there should yet be anyone who has any doubt about the manner in which these so-called confessions were obtained it will be sufficient to quote one authentic account at least that happens to be available about the methods in Communist torture chambers.
  I refer to the book written by Michael Padev, "Dimitrov Wastes No Bullets,"
  2436
  who has described in brilliant but restrained language the events in Bulgaria during 1946 and 1947 leading up to the trial and judicial murder of Petkov, that brave Bulgarian patriot who for so long resisted the Fascist terror. His friend, Peter Koev, is one of the few who, having suffered in a Communist torture chamber, was subsequently released, and before being arrested a second time had the opportunity of placing on record, in his own words, in public, as a member of the Bulgarian Assembly, in that Assembly, the experience which he underwent. If anyone is in doubt as to the method by which the confessions of the 15 Bulgarian Protestant pastors were extorted, they have only to read Peter Koev's account of it. I will quote only a few paragraphs—
  "I shall first describe to you how the interrogation in the Militia prison was carried out, so that you may have an idea of how confessions are produced and how Communist charges are built up. You reach a state of utter physical and moral collapse. You become completely indifferent towards your own life and fate, and you long only for an end, any end, which will bring a reprieve from suffering. But the complete collapse comes only at the moment when you realise that you are defenceless, that there is no law and no authority to protect you, and that you are in the hands of your interrogators for ever. This is actually what they try to make you believe right from the very beginning.
  "But let me tell you exactly what happened to me. For two days after my arrest I was confined to a small dark cell and given no food whatever.
  "They told me what the charges were against me. They read confessions written by several officers giving the details of their own guilt as well as my own alleged participation in the conspiracy. Immediately after that I was sent back to my cell and I was not bothered with any interrogations for 21 days. I was left to 'ripen.' The first method used to achieve this was hunger—I was given only a little bread and water every day. On the twenty-second day, a Saturday, I was taken up to the fourth floor for a second interrogation. It lasted without a break until eleven o'clock of the following Thursday morning. The interrogation went on. day and night, for 24 hours round the clock, without a stop, the interrogators themselves being changed every three hours. During all this time I was left, standing, without any sleep. without any bread and, what is worse, without any water. I was handcuffed and not allowed to lean either on the wall or on the table. Every three hours the new interrogator asked the same identical questions, so that in the end I knew every question by heart … On the fifth day I collapsed and was taken back to my cell. … The following day the inspector who was in charge of my interrogation said my obstinacy had obliged him to

  2437
  change his methods to something really tough. I was put on the floor. My hands were tied behind my back, and I was gagged. Then, for about two hours, I was beaten on the feet with a thick rubber whip."
  And more of these sickening details.
  It was by means such as these that the confessions of the Bulgarian pastors were extorted. I ask the House to imagine the plight of these 15,000 Bulgarian Protestants, scattered among the various villages of Bulgaria, tormented by the imprisonment of their trusted leaders, harassed and pilloried by Communists wherever they may be, and for one reason alone—for their religious faith. The same thing is occurring in Roumania. The Student Christian Movement has been prevented from fulfilling its functions and virtually suppressed—a sinister reminder of the suppression of the Student Christian Movement in Germany by Hitler.
  I have here a letter from a Roumanian priest who has recently left Roumania. He describes how many of his religious students were hunted like dogs and had no shelter, no money, nothing at all, and, of course, no opportunity to escape. The survival of the Orthodox Church is made possible only by the simple expedient of securing the election to all key positions of persons who will follow with abject servility the policy of the State. The technique being practised is to destroy the Church as a centre of spiritual resistance and then use a puppet church as a means of controlling the minds and sympathies of the people. Irony is added to this technique by the recent publication in Bulgaria of a new Communist law cynically called "The Freedom of Religion."I have a copy here. A similar law has recently been passed in Hungary. It is sufficient to read one or two typical articles.
  "Article 19. The State administration, or any organ of the State, cannot be mentioned in any religious service or address except in phrases and sentences authorised by the Minister."
  That means the Minister of the Crown. Again:
  "No religious denomination or church authority can maintain hospitals, welfare centres, kindergartens or other similar institutions."
  Again:
  "No religious denomination or church organisation which has its centre outside Bulgaria can maintain any religious missions, churches, welfare organisations, etc., in Bulgaria."
  2438
  I think I have quoted enough to show that the whole Western world is united in its condemnation and abhorence of the crude and cruel methods being used to intimidate spiritual leaders in Eastern Europe and to reduce Church authorities into submission. Hon. Members may well ask what are we going to do about it?
  I want to make four suggestions, not necessarily putting them in any order of importance. With regard to trading with these countries I say nothing. I hope that we shall continue to trade with them. I appreciate that that is not a matter for my hon. Friend, but a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. But I hope that we shall not by any action, or in our economic, commercial or industrial contacts, do or say anything which implies any condonation of these actions which we condemn so much. I welcome the paragraph in the Minister of State's reply to my Question yesterday, from which I gather that His Majesty's Government will continue to draw public attention to violations of the Peace Treaties as they occur. In this connection I hope they will do nothing to weaken the force of any such protests or manifestations by the kind of incident referred to in another place in a Debate opened by Lord Vansittart the other day.
  It is unfortunately the case that if distinguished Ministers of the Crown attend functions given at the Bulgarian Embassy or Legation, or the Roumanian Embassy, in London at a time when we are protesting against things of this kind, the mere attendance of these leading Cabinet Ministers is used for propaganda purposes in broadcasts to those countries, and internally. By some mischance I was invited to attend the Hungarian national day celebration at the Hungarian Embassy only this week. I presented my compliments to the Minister and said that, in view of the attitude of the Hungarian Government to Cardinal Mindszenty I would not think of accepting the hospitality of the Hungarian Government in this country. I would ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to implement Article 36 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria and the corresponding Articles in the other peace treaties?
  Finally, I would like to make this point. At the time of the Treaties, as

  2439
  at the time of the Charter, it was assumed that the recognition of human rights and the preservation of human freedoms was intimately linked with the preservation of world peace. It was felt that the denial of freedom and the persecution of large minorities by Hitler had itself led to the war. It was, therefore, a major objective in preserving the peace of the world to ensure the recognition of human rights. Now that Fascism is revived, cloaked in the name of Communism, I would hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of bringing these flagrant violations of the Peace Treaties to the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations as a threat to peace.
  11.24 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs(Mr. Mayhew): The hon. Member has set me a formidable task in leaving me to reply to his speech in the very short period of some six or seven minutes. But I think the House must be grateful to him for raising this problem. I felt, when he was speaking about the so-called trial of the Bulgarian pastors, that he was presenting, however unofficially, the true feelings of millions of Nonconformists in this country; not that Nonconformists only among British citizens were shocked by the trial. I think it would be a pity if, when Catholics or Protestants were tried, it was supposed that only their fellow Catholics or Protestants were concerned or had the duty and right to protest. Persecution anywhere, of anyone, whether Catholic, Protestant, Conservative or Socialist, is held by all British citizens to be a crime, whatever their own religious or political convictions. It is the persecution itself which we hate, although the evil sometimes appears more evil when the victim shares our own political or religious convictions.
  I cannot, Mr. Speaker, in the short time which is available to me, tell the whole tale of religious persecution in Eastern Europe. Religious persecution, suppression of political parties, the wiping out of the free Press, and the suppression of free intellectual activity of all kinds is part of the life of Eastern Europe today. There is a calculated standard of ruthless oppression of all opposition, real or imaginary, in the Soviet orbit today.
  My hon. Friend concentrated on religious persecution, and very rightly stated
  2440
  that these trials of Cardinal Mindszenty and the Bulgarian pastors and others, were not isolated incidents. They were part of a general offensive against freedom of religion in Eastern Europe. That is true, and it is clear that in the theory and practice of Communism in the Soviet Union and Communist dominated countries, there is a declared enmity to religion. I have not the time to go into the theoretical aspects of this. Hon. Members will be aware of the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Engelss; writings which express hostility towards religion in a peculiar, old-fashioned, pre-Freudian way. More recently I can quote a typical expression of Communist reaction to religion by quoting an official publication in Communist Lithuania on 26th June last year:
  "Religion in a Socialist State is one of the survivals of the capitalist principle in the worker's conscience. Religious prejudices are still maintained because of obscurity, lack of culture, and the strength of custom. 'All religion is opposed to science,' says Comrade Stalin."
  It is true that the methods used by Communist parties to destroy religious beliefs have been modified since early days. Bitter experience has finally taught the Kremlin that the direct persecution of religion is impracticable and they refrain now from open persecution of religions as such. They try instead to bring religious institutions under their control. They spare no effort to turn the mind of the young from all religious thought and knowledge. It excludes the propagation of religion while expressly authorising anti-religious propaganda. But since they cannot eradicate all religious belief, they maintain controlled religious organisations instead. In the satellite States the churches and synagogues have not been reduced to the same regimented obedience as in the Soviet. The seizure of the Protestant Church pastors in Bulgaria in one fell swoop is the latest example. We in England are familiar with the work of the Protestant leaders.
  Who can seriously believe that by some extraordinary coincidence, the head of the Methodist Church, the head of the Baptist Church, the head of the Uniate Church in a country, together with their assistants, were all of them, spies and black marketeers in disguise? But the world is asked to believe an even more astonishing coincidence. It seems

  2441
  that Cardinal Mindszenty, the Prince Primate of Hungary, was guilty of the same offences, and so also, surprisingly enough, was Archbishop Stepinac, the head of the Catholic Church in Croatia, Bishop Ordasz, the head of the Lutheran Church in Hungary, was recently also sentenced to two years in gaol for the same offences. Every week we see clergymen of one denomination or another arrested in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, etc., for similar offences, Jesuit houses in Poland have been closed, and last December several Catholic youth organisations in the provinces were forcibly dissolved.
  In Roumania the Uniate Church has been suppressed as a separate entity. On 5th December, 1948, the official gazette published a decree extinguishing it, and ordering the confiscation of its property by the State. The Chief Rabbi was forced to flee early in 1948, and has now reached Switzerland. In Yugoslavia, again just a year ago, the orthodox Bishop of Sarajevo was condemned to seven years' hard labour. This is part of a concerted attack on religion which is just part of a similar attack on freedom of all kinds in Communist Europe today. I am asked four questions by the hon. Member whether the fact that we trade with Eastern Europe, and the fact that Ministers attend
  2442
  receptions given by these countries, indicate in any way, any kind of condonation of these persecutions. Of course it does not in any way indicate that. The question of trade has been discussed often in the House and the hon. Member will not expect me to go into it now.
  I was asked whether we would be invoking Article 36 of the Treaty. I can only refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday and to state that we are certainly considering the action which is now open to us after the 18 months expiry referred to in Article 35 of the Treaty. Finally, I was asked about the United Nations. The House will appreciate the difficulties here. Certain countries concerned are not members of the United Nations to begin with. Then there is the question of the applicability of the Charter; but I can say that these things are being considered and I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Marshall Aid (Export Control)
  Marshall Aid (Export Control)
  Hosiery (Foreign Import Restrictions)
  Hosiery (Foreign Import Restrictions)
  Racing Pigeons (Import)
  Racing Pigeons (Import)
FUEL AND POWER
  Hydro-Electric Power, North Wales
  Hydro-Electric Power, North Wales
  Petrol (Commercial Travellers)
  Petrol (Commercial Travellers)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Closed Mines
  Closed Mines
  Opencast Sites, Hoyland
  Opencast Sites, Hoyland
  POLICE CONDITIONS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  POLICE CONDITIONS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  PRISONS (SUICIDES)
  PRISONS (SUICIDES)
  STATE MANAGEMENT HOUSES (WAGES)
  STATE MANAGEMENT HOUSES (WAGES)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Incumbents (Discipline) Rules
  Incumbents (Discipline) Rules
  Publication
  Publication
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Estimates, Class III
  Civil Estimates, Class III
  B.O.A.C. (Stock Issue)
  B.O.A.C. (Stock Issue)
  Hard Currency Goods (Purchases)
  Hard Currency Goods (Purchases)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dispute, Nottingham
  Dispute, Nottingham
  Cotton Industry (Canteens and Day Nurseries)
  Cotton Industry (Canteens and Day Nurseries)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Emergency Bed Service
  Emergency Bed Service
  Infirmary, Grimsby (Administrative Officer)
  Infirmary, Grimsby (Administrative Officer)
  Ronkswood Hospital, (Worcester)
  Ronkswood Hospital, (Worcester)
  Analgesia (Trilene)
  Analgesia (Trilene)
  Vaccination (Doctors' Fees)
  Vaccination (Doctors' Fees)
  Prescriptions (School Dental Officers)
  Prescriptions (School Dental Officers)
  Hospital, Leicester (Nurses)
  Hospital, Leicester (Nurses)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Invalid Chairs
  Invalid Chairs
  Influenza Deaths (Statistics)
  Influenza Deaths (Statistics)
  Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Beds)
  Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Beds)
  Hospital Beds, Sunderland
  Hospital Beds, Sunderland
  Military Hospital, Shugborough Park
  Military Hospital, Shugborough Park
HOUSING
  Lowestoft
  Lowestoft
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Permanent Houses
  Permanent Houses
  Mossley
  Mossley
  WATER SUPPLY (RIPON AND PATLEY BRIDGE)
  WATER SUPPLY (RIPON AND PATLEY BRIDGE)
  POLICE (LOCAL RATES)
  POLICE (LOCAL RATES)
EDUCATION
  Lip-Reading Classes
  Lip-Reading Classes
  Secondary Technical Schools (Wales)
  Secondary Technical Schools (Wales)
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Ex-Service Men's Widows
  Ex-Service Men's Widows
  Pensions Appeal Tribunals
  Pensions Appeal Tribunals
  AIRCRAFT LOSS, MIDDLE EAST (INQUIRY'S FINDINGS)
  AIRCRAFT LOSS, MIDDLE EAST (INQUIRY'S FINDINGS)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Remploy Factory, Croydon
  Remploy Factory, Croydon
  Surplus Huts and Hangars
  Surplus Huts and Hangars
POST OFFICE
  Controlling and Administrative Officers
  Controlling and Administrative Officers
  Public Relations Officer
  Public Relations Officer
  AGRICULTURE (LIVESTOCK AND CROP PRICES)
  AGRICULTURE (LIVESTOCK AND CROP PRICES)
  GERMANY (REPATRIATED RUSSIAN CHILD)
  GERMANY (REPATRIATED RUSSIAN CHILD)
  TANGANYIKA (EUROPEAN LAND SETTLEMENT)
  TANGANYIKA (EUROPEAN LAND SETTLEMENT)
  SIERRA LEONE (MINING BENEFITS FUND)
  SIERRA LEONE (MINING BENEFITS FUND)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Statutory Instruments and Memoranda
  Statutory Instruments and Memoranda
  MILITARY AIRCRAFT (SALES ABROAD)
  MILITARY AIRCRAFT (SALES ABROAD)
  CHEESE (SUBSIDY)
  CHEESE (SUBSIDY)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayer

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Levy of rates in respect of expenditure on water supply]:
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 5, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("purpose").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 5, leave out ("said").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Provisions as to liability for domestic water rate
  (2) The domestic water rate shall not be leviable in respect of any premises, being lands and heritages situated within the district of a local authority, unless—
  (c) in the case of any other premises a supply of water provided by a local water authority is used for any purpose for or in connection with which the premises are used or by or for persons employed or otherwise engaged on or about the premises in connection with such purpose.
  LORD MORRISONhad four Amendments down to Clause 2, of which the
  450
  first was, in subsection (2) (a) after "water" (where the word first occurs) to insert, "provided by a local water authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment can be taken with the next three. They are drafting Amendments which meet a point raised by the County Clerk of Selkirk and also by the Town Clerk of Greenock. The object is to make it clear that the local authority have the right to levy a domestic water rate on any premises if water provided by a local water authority is provided in pipes within the premises. It is not necessary, for the domestic water rate to be leviable, for the authority that supply the water themselves to take the water in pipes within the premises. Under Section 54 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, the duty of bringing water within the premises remains that of the owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 20, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD POLWARTH: I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, to thank the noble Lord for having met this point, which I know considerably exercised certain county clerks and others I hope that this concession, so early in the passage of the Bill, will augur well for the rest of its progress.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: These are the drafting Amendments of which I have spoken. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 20, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 24, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 25, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "provided" to insert "within the premises." The noble Earl said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) applies to premises which are neither dwelling houses nor agricultural heritages,

  451
  and provides that in the case of persons occupying premises who use water provided by local authority, whether inside or outside the premises, domestic water rate becomes payable on those premises. Some of us feel that in certain cases this will be an unreasonable and onerous requirement. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Imagine that there are a dwelling house and a shop next door to each other, with what is called a standpipe—that is, a private fountain on the end of a tube. The dwelling house would pay no rates in such a case, whereas the shop would—even though the shop used the water only for consumption by the people who were on their premises. Or take the case of a tenement having a water pipe, and one next door to it not having a pipe. One pays water rate and the other does not, even though he may use the water. We do not consider that to be a very sound principle. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 29, after ("provided") insert ("within the premises").—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that at this early stage in the proceedings I must disagree at once with my noble friend—though I do not suppose he is surprised at that. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is intended to cover the levy of domestic water rate on all premises other than dwelling houses and agricultural land and heritages. It was drafted with the particular intention to cover circumstances that arise in the area of the Airdrie, Coatbridge and District Water Board (I do not know whether that is the area which the noble Earl has in mind) and no doubt in other areas also, where certain shops, instead of being connected to the main, draw their water as they require it from a neighbouring shop that is so connected. There is no statutory duty on the owner of an existing shop to bring the piped water within it. Therefore, if paragraph (c) were amended as the noble Earl proposes, the shops that draw their water from their neighbours would escape payment of the domestic water rate—and I am sure that that is not what the noble Earl desires. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of his Amendment. The Amendment would, in fact, defeat one of the objects for which the paragraph has been framed.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: The example I gave was of a dwelling house and a shop being adjacent, where the shop has to draw its supply from the dwelling house.
  LORD POLWARTH: If a shop has a public drinking fountain in the street outside, and the occupants of the shop go out from time to time to get a drink, will they be liable to pay a domestic water rate?
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Is it not correct to say that paragraph (a) was amended in another place and that that Amendment requires local authorities to provide a piped supply into houses? It seems logical that the same requirement should be included in this paragraph (c).
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is considering the case where local authorities cannot connect premises for lack of materials. It is not fair to make a man who wants to bring the water into his premises pay rates for something he has not got.
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have already said, that in the event, which often happens, of two shops adjoining each other, one of which has a water supply and the other of which has not, if the noble Lord's proposed Amendment were carried it would be possible for one shop entirely to escape paying the due amount of the water rate. As it is accepted that it is impossible for any shop to conduct its business without the use of water in some form or another, for drinking, for washing the windows, washing the floors or for any purpose like that, I feel it is only fair that they should pay.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before the next stage, will the noble Lord look into this matter to see whether there is any discrepancy between paragraphs (a) and (c)?
  LORD MORRISON: I will gladly do so.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: In view of that undertaking, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects]:
  LORD MORRISON: This, again, is a drafting Amendment to ensure that Clause 3, which relates to the levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects, follows Clause 2 in providing that the domestic water rate will be leviable only if water is provided by a local water authority within a dwelling house comprised in the premises. The present wording of the clause seems to suggest that a dwelling house provided with a supply of water from a private source would be liable for domestic water rate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This also is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Levy of domestic water rate on certain public utility undertakings, mines, parks, etc.
  5. Where the domestic water rate is leviable in respect of lands and heritages occupied as waterworks, gas works or sewage works, or as a mine or a quarry, or as a public park or recreation ground, it shall be levied according to one-quarter of the gross annual value thereof.
  LORD MORRISON: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 12, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words from "ground" to the end of the clause and to insert:
  "the last foregoing section shall apply to those lands and heritages as it applies to the premises specified in subsection (4) of the said section with the substitution of 'one-quarter' for 'one-half' and of 'one-eighth' for 'one-quarter', wherever these words occur."
  The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at Clause 4, which we have just passed, you will observe that that clause, Which applies to shops, offices, factories,
  454
  theatres and such premises, renders those premises liable to one-half only of the domestic water rate, and it gives the local authority discretion further to reduce it to a minimum of one-quarter. In addition, where the gross annual value of such premises is particularly high, the occupier can take his supply by meter and pay a still further reduced domestic water rate. I recapitulate that because I am not quite clear—and I move this Amendment in order to obtain clarification—why the same flexibility and possibility of accommodation is not extended to the premises to which Clause 5 applies. Those premises are set out in the clause. It seems to me that some of them, such as public parks or sewage works, may use only a small quantity of water for domestic purposes. If that were the case, it might well be that a rate of one-quarter of the domestic water rate would be unduly high. I move this Amendment in order to find out the reason why the measure of flexibility given in Clause 4 was not accorded to a local authority in dealing with these premises also. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("ground") to end of clause, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD POLWARTH: Before the noble Lord replies, I have two points to make. The first is a question: what exactly are considered "domestic purposes" in the case of premises of this kind? For instance, in the case of a mine, water is used for pithead baths. Pithead baths would appear to me to be a domestic purpose, in the interests of health and cleanliness, and they might consume a very large quantity of water. That is only one example to show the great disparity that there might be between the water consumption at the different types of premises dealt with by this clause. My other point is this. In the Report of the Bryce Walker Committee, the recommendation on this point was more or less on the lines of this clause, with the exception that, where a local authority had their own Act and under that Act could charge a lower proportion than one-quarter, they could apply to the Secretary of State to have that lower proportion continued. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee. I am not quite clear whether or not such an arrangement could continue under the Bill as it now stands.
  LORD MORRISON: I am not able to give the noble Lord an authoritative reply in regard to the exact definition of "domestic water supply" in this connection, but I think I can be reasonably sure that the instance he has given is correct—that water used in pithead baths would be regarded as domestic water, as would water used in lavatories, for washing purposes, for cooking purposes and in connection with canteens in the works. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to give local authorities a power to reduce to one-eighth the fraction of gross annual value on which the domestic water rate is leviable on water works, gas works and various other subjects specified in the clause. The view was taken, after due consideration, that the fraction of one-quarter suggested by the Bryce Walker Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, for this group of subjects would operate fairly if no power were given to the local authority to vary it.
  The principal argument that I have to urge to my noble friend is this. During the whole of the consultations that took place between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations in the preparation of this Bill—and with his experience he knows how prolonged and exhaustive those consultations are—neither in the consultations nor in the detailed observations which were submitted to the local authority associations was there any suggestion from any local authority that they should be empowered under the clause to levy the domestic water rate at a lower fraction than one-quarter of the gross annual value of the various premises concerned. It might also be mentioned that no suggestion that the fraction is too high has been received from any bodies concerned as ratepayers under the clause. The noble Lord will realise my difficulty. As no responsible body in Scotland, during the long time that this Bill has been under consideration and while it was passing through another place has apparently thought of this Amendment, it makes it rather difficult for me to give any encouragement to him at this late hour of the day.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Possibly people do not always realise what is good for them! But I do not wish to try to be
  456
  more royal than the King or to press this Amendment further. I should have thought there would have been advantage in giving some flexibility to the local authority to deal with cases such as my noble friend Lord Polwarth has instanced—that of the pithead bath. But it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that nobody else has raised this matter. I still think that the last word of wisdom has not been said, but I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, having, given it an airing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Levy of domestic water rate on shootings and fishing]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 17, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  2.54 p.m.
  Clause 8:
  Contributions by county council in aid of domestic water rate
  8.—(1) If in any year it appears to a local authority being the council of a county that by reason of the cost of works undertaken or to be undertaken in connection with the provision or improvement of a supply of water in their district or by reason of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act requiring a major portion of the rate-borne expenditure of the authority in providing a supply of water to be defrayed out of a domestic water rate payable by occupiers only, the financial burden imposed or to be imposed on occupiers in their district is greater than they can reasonably be expected to bear unaided, the authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State in that year defray such part of the cost of providing or improving the supply of water in their district in such manner as appears to them equitable, and where part of such cost is defrayed out of rates it shall be defrayed out of the county rate.
  (2) Subsection (2) of section two hundred and thirty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which subsection relates to the information required to be contained in demand notes for payment of rates) shall have effect as if expenditure under this section were a branch of expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph (f) of that subsection.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I

  457
  am moving to delete this clause because I consider it is a very dangerous one. Under the Bryce Walker Report a recommendation was made that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total burden, or a rate of 6d. in the £, whichever was higher. I do not know why, but the powers-that-be thought it would be better not to follow this recommendation of the Committee which had been set up, and in Clause 1 they have not only raised the maximum to one-third in place of one-quarter, but by this clause they render an unlimited increase possible. In other words, if the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, come to the conclusion that the burden imposed upon occupants in a district will be too heavy for them to bear unaided, an unspecified additional burden can be transferred to the public water rate. This is more likely to happen, as we understand it, in the parts of Scotland where, for geographical reasons, the public rate will be paid by a great many people who do not now receive Public water supply, and who are not likely to in the future, either because they are too high up or they are too far away.
  As I said on Second Reading, I am not against a system of a flat rate, because I believe that in time that will be inevitable with everything. The urban population of this country have had two lessons, in the 1914–1918 war and in the last war, and surely they realise that they are dependent upon the rural communities. We shall be unable to keep the rural communities in these far-flung districts and the urban population next time will be well on the way to being starved. Therefore the rural population must be given as many as possible of the amenities which their brethren have in the towns. And that means accepting the principle of a flat rate whereby, possibly, the urban people will have to pay more order to subsidise those that do not get these amenities. It is the same with electricity, and so on. What I do feel is wrong is that His Majesty's Government should not have some limit to the burden which they or the local authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State (which is the same thing), can place upon the domestic rate.
  I am not suggesting that local authorities are all unreasonable people, but of course some are. I am not even
  458
  going to suggest that all Secretaries of State are unreasonable, but sometimes we find one who is not so reasonable as others. Sometimes, for instance, he is a man who is a little weighed down with party politics, or is perhaps not so well able to stand up to the Sassenachs here by whom we are ruled so centrally and steadfastly. Some of them do not go far enough for us in protecting our interests in Scotland—I except in present company, any Secretaries of State of the past. However, for the safety of the people in Scotland I think we should insist that His Majesty's Government give a clear indication of the circumstances in which they propose to invoke this clause and, what is even more important, should also give some idea of what the maximum burden on the public rate might be. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 8.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD POLWARTH: I would like strongly to support what my noble friend has said. It would be a great help to us if we could have some idea, in the first place, of what the anticipated public water rate is liable to amount to. We have heard that it will be a fraction varying between one-fifth and one-third, but it is a fact that we have no indication of how much, in pence or shillings in the pound, this will represent in any particular area in Scotland. If we are to allow this clause to pass, I think we should have some idea of what the public water rate is likely to be before we start considering increasing it under the provisions of this clause. I do not know whither the noble Lord can give us any figures by way of example.
  LORD MORRISON: When the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, decides to put down an Amendment, he does it properly; where other noble Lords put down an Amendment to delete one word, he moves to delete a whole clause! From his position of splendid and glorious independence in this House he is able to do things that, if he were sitting on the Front Bench opposite, he would perhaps hesitate to do. However, I will give him an explanation of what is the position, as I understand it, in regard to this clause, in the hope that he may consider the reasons for retaining the clause in the Bill stronger than those for deleting it.

  459
  I suggest to the noble Earl that to delete this clause altogether would be a retrograde step. Under the special district procedure, a county council have had power, since the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was passed, to contribute towards the expenses of a special district where the burden on the special district ratepayers would otherwise have been greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear. The words: "reasonably be expected to bear" have been carried forward to the present Bill, and as county councils have apparently had no difficulty in the past in assigning an appropriate meaning to the expression, it is not thought that any difficulty should be experienced in future in deciding at what point the domestic water rate leviable on the consumer would prove too onerous a burden.
  May I say here, in parenthesis, that the Bryce Walker Committee, to which reference has been made more than once this afternoon, proposed that a county council should have power to help from the county funds where the 25 per cent. public water rate was insufficient? That was in paragraph 19 of the Report. All this clause does is to translate, in relation to contribution from general county funds, the existing special district procedure, to which reference has already been made, into terms of the new system of a county public water rate and a county domestic water rate. In any case, the county councils must be trusted to use responsibly the power given to them by the clause. Moreover, they cannot exercise it without the authority of the Secretary of State—though I doubt whether that will bring much feeling of confidence to the mind of my noble friend. Without the power which the clause gives to the county council to come to the assistance of the domestic water rate out of the county rate, the domestic water rate on the limited number of ratepayers liable for it in some counties might be so heavy that schemes would never be carried out at all.
  The maximum for the public water rate, as such, is determined by Clause 1 and, as the noble Earl well knows, will thus depend on the amount of water expenditure and on the fraction—varying from one-fifth to one-third—which the local authority decide should be de
  460
  frayed from the public water rate. In deciding whether approval should be given under Clause 8 to a contribution from general county funds, additional to that provided by the public water rate, the Secretary of State will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the general level of rates, the magnitude of the proposed expenditure and the extent to which further public supplies of water are essential in the public interest.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I can say only that, so far as I know, no attempt has been made to forecast the future level of the public water rate since, in addition to the amount of expenditure and the fraction of that expenditure to be allocated to the public water rate, the rate will be affected by the special rating provisions dealing with shops, factories, and so on, as dealt with in Clauses 4 to 6 of this Bill. I hope that with that explanation of the real object of this clause, the noble Earl will be satisfied, and will feel disposed to allow the clause to remain in the Bill.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before my noble friend Lord Airlie speaks again I would like to make one or two observations on this matter. I am bound to say that I feel rather unhappy about this clause. Sir Robert Bryce Walker, who conducted a very careful review of this whole question, came to the conclusion that it was wise to strike a limit and to say that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total or a rate of 6d. I think that in doing so, he must have had in mind those very large and sparsely-populated counties in Scotland in which many people do not receive the benefit of a piped water supply. It is with regard to such counties with a low rateable value, where capital works may be necessary and may be very expensive, that this problem will arise. I find it difficult to see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said suggests that he regards the removal of the whole clause as too sweeping. Perhaps between now and the Report stage we might apply our minds to this problem (which Sir Robert Bryce Walker obviously regarded as serious) and see whether we can hit upon something which can be done to meet the point. If so, I

  461
  hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will consider it. I do not know if my noble friend would be agreeable in those circumstances to withdraw his Amendment now. Certainly, some of us do not feel happy at the idea of leaving things as they are in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I thought I had made it plain that I am not disagreeing with the principle of a flat rate, or with the idea of one district helping another. What I wanted to see was that there should be some limit to which the rate could be raised. In Clause I the maximum to which the public rate can be raised is one-third of the burden, and I understand that if one district has laid upon it a burden which is more than it can reasonably be expected to bear, the contribution to the public rate can be increased, provided that the Secretary of State agrees, to lessen the burden of the domestic rate. I want to see some safeguard, so that the contribution cannot be increased out of all proportion or in unusual ways.
  LORD MORRISON: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, I can only say that I have no control over Amendments which noble Lords put down at any stage of this Bill. If any noble Lord thinks that there is a further point to be made on this Amendment, I have no power to prevent him putting it down for consideration at a later stage—and, indeed, if had the power, I would not desire to exercise it. At the same time, I can make no promise that any more sympathetic reception will be given to it. This is a free country and if, when the Report stage is reached, the noble Earl still desires to delete Clause 8 then he must try to do so.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am not going to enter into any debate with the noble Lord as to whether this is a free country or not. He knows exactly what my views are about that, and whether or not I think there are shackles upon his neck and upon mine. We all know what the position is in that respect. If the noble Lord will agree to give further consideration, between now and the Report stage, to the points which have been raised, I am willing to withdraw.
  LORD MORRISON: I certainly assent to that, but the noble Earl must clearly understand that I am not entering into any commitment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Then I will release the shackles!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  3.7 p.m.
  Clause 9:
  Dissolution of special water supply districts
  (6) Where immediately before the appointed day a local water authority are entitled under any enactment or agreement to take a supply of water from any stream or other source for the purpose specified in the enactment or agreement being a purpose relating to the functions of the authority with respect to water supply, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the said enactment or agreement or in this Act, the authority shall continue to be entitled to take that supply for that purpose, so, however, that they shall not be entitled to take in any year thereafter an amount of water greater than the amount they were entitled to take in the year immediately preceding the appointed day.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out the words "continue to." The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee this Amendment and the next one will go together. The purpose of subsection (6) of Clause 9, in which these Amendments are to be made, is to guard against a possible consequence of the dissolution of special water supply districts. In some cases, a county council, when acquiring rights to take water for use in providing a supply to a special water supply district, agreed that the waver should not be used to supply premises outside the special district. With the dissolution of special districts, water supplies previously earmarked for them will be required as part of the county water supply system, and the purpose of the subsection is to enable the authority to use for county purposes a supply previously limited to a special district. The Amendments now to be moved are to meet an observation made by the county clerk of Nairn (at whose suggestion subsection (6) was originally included in the Bill) that the subsection as worded might not enable a local water authority to make use, for the general purposes of their undertaking, of water which they originally acquired for use in one particular special district. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 19, leave out ("continue to").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 20, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("any purpose relating to their functions with respect to water supply").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Expenses of local authority supplying water in district of another authority
  (3) If in any particular case the authorities concerned are satisfied that the allocation in manner provided by the last foregoing subsection of the expenses of a supplying authority among the local authorities concerned would impose on any of those authorities (including the supplying authority) a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear they may enter into an agreement for the purpose of regulating the manner in which the expenses of the supplying authority in that case are to be defrayed, and if the Secretary of State, being satisfied as aforesaid, makes an order approving the agreement the terms of the agreement shall during such period as may be specified in the agreement come in place of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "could reasonably" and to insert "would otherwise." The noble Lord said: This is rather an involved clause. I will try not to take too long but I must endeavour to explain what the clause in effect means. Under it there are to be new arrangements for the charging of water where a local authority supplies water outside its own area to premises in the district of another authority. The practice at present is very often that the supplying authority can levy a water rate on the premises outside its own area. I think the classic example, cited many times in this connection, is that of Glasgow supplying water to Rutherglen. Usually, the area outside the district of the supplying authority has paid a higher rate for its water. I do not think there has been much complaint about that. In general it would be to the advantage of the people outside, because they have still a supply cheaper than they would have if they had to install their own waterworks. In general, I think there has not been any injustice on that score.
  464
  Under the clause, however, such arrangements will not be able to continue. The cost of the water supply will be levelled out and will be borne equally by the people supplied inside and outside the supplier's district. Instead of rating directly on the people outside, there will be a requisition on their council, who will then collect the amount.
  There are two loopholes to this process. The first is that if the authorities agree that an unreasonable financial burden is placed on the people in either area, they may come to some other agreement about the cost of the supply of water. Secondly, failing agreement, either party may go to the Secretary of State for Scotland and say they are being hardly treated and ask him to alter the rate; and he may do so if he thinks "a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear" would otherwise be imposed on the authority. Incidentally, I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that on page 7 the words are "they could reasonably" and, on page 8, "they should reasonably." Or is that merely one of those coincidences which may be ascribed to the fact that to-day is St. Patrick's Day, and that has affected the sense of propriety of the authorities who want these things? The Second Reading of this Bill was given on St. David's Day, and perhaps we shall have to wait until St. Andrew's Day to see the Bill through!
  I should like to ask how this will affect cases where water is supplied to a district outside, not on a system of rating but in bulk. I know that the Burgh of Montrose is concerned about that. They supply water to villages in the County of Angus, and the county pay for it in bulk and then distribute it to the villages in the county. They would like to know whether that sort of arrangement will be able to continue, and whether it will not be superseded by the arrangements under this clause. While it is right and proper that different parties should pay fair rates for their water, we feel it would have been better to let existing arrangements continue on their present basis. I do not think there are any cases of hardship. There is a somewhat competitive spirit among local authorities in Scotland. They are rightly very jealous of their rights, and I think that any arrangements at present existing have been struck as a fair bargain. I should have thought it

  465
  better to let the present arrangements continue, while still providing these two loopholes—namely, that either the parties could agree on a new rate or, having failed to make an agreement, could go to the Secretary of State and ask him to alter the present arrangement. I think that would give much more latitude in coming to agreement than having to go to St. Andrew's House. That is the reason why I move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 41, leave out ("could reasonably") and insert ("would otherwise").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: The point in regard to Montrose is not confined to Montrose. It also affects Dundee, which delivers water in bulk to an estate in the County of Angus.
  LORD MORRISON: The point about Dundee will arise later in the proceedings, where the question of a change in the Bill may affect the special position in Dundee.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: That point is only in regard to time. The question now is whether Dundee will be allowed to continue to deliver in bulk to estates.
  LORD MORRISON: In regard to the last argument of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I think the convincing answer is that, so far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware, the clause as it stands at present is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. That does not seem to encourage the noble Lord in his plea that they should be left alone to continue as they have been doing and make the best of it. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, they are all agreeable to accepting the proposals in the Bill. The point as to why the word "should" is used in one place and "could" in another, I confess is too difficult for me. I can only think that the natural desire of the Scot to introduce in Acts of Parliament as much variety of language as he possibly can has led to that variation. There may be a better explanation, but if there is, I do not know it. Generally speaking, this clause does not disturb the existing arrangements whereby one authority sell water in bulk to another for distribution by the latter through their own water supply system. That meets the points of both the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie.
  466
  Montrose's arrangements will not be disturbed by the Bill at all. The terms on which water is supplied bulk are a matter for agreement between the authorities concerned and, failing agreement, may be referred by the authorities for determination by the Secretary of State.
  The clause in its present form, which I may say is the result of Amendments made in another place to meet the representations of the local authority associations, is designed to give the maximum elasticity in the procedure for the allocation of expenses where one local authority are supplying water in the district of another. As I was saying, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, the clause as it stands is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. It may be asked what rates are likely to result from the operation of the clause. It is difficult to give any precise information on this point, but I think it can be said that where the whole of the district of one authority is supplied with water by another, the water rates in the two districts should be approximately the same. At present the common practice is for the supplying authority to levy a higher rate outside their own district. With that explanation, I hope the fears of the noble Lord may be lessened, and that he may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Arising out of what the noble Lord has Said, I want to make the position clear. My point is a different one. My point is that Dundee delivers water in bulk through the meter to an estate, not to an authority at all. I was asking whether under this clause that system will disappear, and whether it will come under a new system.
  LORD MORRISON: I cannot answer that point off-hand, but I will make inquiries and let the noble Earl know.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord has said, and recognise that this clause, as amended in another place, has not met with objection from the local authority associations. But surely we cannot always go on the principle that Parliament can do anything wisely so long as no one objects. None the less, I see that there are advantages in the flexibility secured by this arrangement. I would, however, say that I think the

  467
  Secretary of State and his advisers will require the wisdom of Solomon in deciding what is a reasonable rate to pay.
  LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. In particular, we are grateful for his assurance about the case of Montrose. I know they will be relieved to have that assurance. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment, as there appears to be general agreement on the principles. However, I think it will add considerably to the work involved after the passing of this Bill, and I hope that St. Andrew's House will not find they have a great many knotty problems on this point to solve.
  LORD MORRISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I may say that I have obtained further information on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I understand that Dundee will be allowed to continue to supply other authorities in bulk, but not estates. Subjects on those estates will have to be rated.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 10 and 11]:
  LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments, to make clear that the duty of the clerk of the local authority to whom the requisition falls to be issued is merely to provide the clerk of the joint water board or supplying authority with a copy of the valuation roll for the district of his authority; that is to say, to make available the necessary information regarding the valuation of premises within that district. It is not his duty, but that of the supplying authority, to state in detail which premises are in fact supplied with water. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 47, leave out ("or any part of that district").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 2, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 3, and insert ("that roll").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Provisions as to valuation roll
  (5) If in any year the apportionment mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section has not been completed on or before the fifteenth day of August as respects any premises to which subsection (1) of section three or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section four of this Act relates, the domestic water rate, in so far as it is leviable in respect of those premises, shall be levied in that year according to the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, at end of subsection (5), to insert:
  "or, in a case where no water rate was so levied, according to the rateable value (as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947) of those premises."
  The noble Lord said: The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, raised a point concerning a particular difficulty which would affect the County of Angus if this Bill were passed into law. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for raising this point and giving the Government the opportunity of dealing with it, and also to thank the County Clerk of Angus for his help in trying to deal with this special difficulty. As a result of the provisions of Clauses 3 and 15, many county assessors will have a large amount of work to do in apportioning the value of agricultural lands and heritages as between the value of the dwelling houses and that of the remainder of the premises. It was therefore necessary to make some provision for the value on which the domestic water rate should be levied temporarily until such time as the work of apportioning could be completed. Farms in Angus County supplied by Dundee—and also farms in some other areas—are, however, metered, not rated. In such cases the phrase,
  "the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day,"
  which is used in Clause 15 (5), has no meaning and does not serve to provide an interim arrangement. The Amendment which I now move will enable the

  469
  domestic water rate to be levied on the rateable value of agricultural lands and heritages—where no water rate has hitherto been paid—until the assessor can complete the necessary work of apportionment.
  The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this Amendment has been accepted by the County Clerk of Angus as meeting the particular difficulty of that County Council. I am not claiming, however, that it will meet the difficulty confronting the supplying authority in that case—namely, Dundee Corporation—whose circumstances are somewhat exceptional. But the difficulty in relation to Angus has been resolved and I am authorised by the Secretary of State to say that he has the difficulty of Dundee Corporation under active consideration. I hope at a later stage of the Bill—either on Report or on Third Reading—to be able to move an appropriate Amendment which will perhaps solve the problem of the Dundee Corporation. I hope what I have said will be satisfactory to the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page l0, line 43, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am informed by the County Clerk and others that their point has been entirely met. I would like to take the opportunity of offering my gratitude to the noble Lord on behalf of Angus and Dundee for the trouble he has taken to deal with this matter. I feel rather like the man who comes out of the ring shaking hands with himself.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Transport and electricity hereditaments
  (2) Where a water rate was in the year 1947–48 levied in respect of premises being a railway or canal hereditament or a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority, an Area Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, on the fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and no charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed was made, no charge by way of meter or otherwise shall be made in the year 1948–49 or in any subsequent year during which the premises are occupied as such a hereditament as aforesaid in respect of a supply of water
  470
  (whether for domestic purposes or otherwise) to those premises by a local water authority.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) after "aforesaid" to insert:
  "and used for substantially the same purpose or purposes as in the year 1947–48".
  The noble Lord said: While I dare not think that I am going to come out of the ring in quite the same manner as the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I do want to draw attention to this point, which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is the clause concerned with the supply of water to certain nationalised undertakings—what are described in the Bill as "a railway or canal hereditament"—or "a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority," and so on. I will not enter into discussion with the noble Lord about the use of that particular word, however much we may feel on the point. It is not a word that is in common usage in Scottish law.
  However, the point is that these undertakings are rated by the Local Government Act, 1948, on a global sum; that is to say, each local authority, instead of getting the rates on these subjects according to the length of railway line or the number of power stations in the county, gets a share of the whole rating of the undertakings in the whole of Scotland, divided up according to the county or burgh's rateable value. Under this clause, any premises belonging to these authorities in 1947–48, or earlier, which were being supplied with water by a local authority, cannot from now on have any charge levied on them for the supply of water. All they bear is their share of this global sum of rating. The point I am concerned about is where there is a large increase in consumption of water on one of these premises.
  I know it is said that it is not very likely to happen, but I can think of a number of cases, particularly as I understand that the word "premises" includes land and not only buildings. For example, water might be laid on at a small wayside railway station and it might be decided, in the interests of expansion, to build a junction or a larger station and put in facilities for large supplies of water to railway engines, and so on. It might even be, decided to lay water troughs for picking up the water,

  471
  and in that way there might be a large increase in the amount of water taken by that undertaking.
  Under the present arrangement, the local authority supplying the water will not be able to recoup itself directly for the increased supply. The only way in which it will do so is by a very indirect share of any increase made in the total rating of the railway system or electricity authority. I believe there is provision that this total rating can be increased. I believe that it can be increased on an electricity undertaking in accordance with the number of units of electricity produced. I do not know whether, in the case of a railway, the rating is based upon the number of tickets sold. We would like to see some arrangement by which the local authority who are supplying the water can get some increased sum in return for having to give a greatly increased supply. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 27, after ("aforesaid") insert the said words.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am sorry that we are unable to continue in the note of exaltation raised by the noble Earl on the previous Amendment. But, alas, we must come back again to hard facts, and all that I can say with regard to the noble Lord's Amendment is to draw his attention to what is provided in Clause 16.
  Clause 16 provides that premises occupied by a railway or canal or electricity undertaking, in respect of which a water rate was payable and no charge was made on the basis of water consumed in 1947–48, shall be exempt from further charges for water because a sum in respect of water is included in the standard amount payable under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, by the occupying bodies. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable a local water authority to impose a charge for water in a case where there is merely a change of use in premises—for instance, a change from use as a warehouse to use as a repair shop—even though there is no change of occupation. This would have the effect of requiring the occupying bodies to make a double payment in respect of water, as there would be no compensating adjustment of the standard
  472
  amount and, clearly, that would be inequitable.
  A change of use may increase or decrease the amount of water used, but in cases where a supply of water was normally covered by a rate charge, that charge would not have been varied according to the amount of water used, and there is a provision in the 1948 Act which allows for an annual variation in the standard amount which will take account of any changes which would in the past have resulted in a higher valuation of premises for rating purposes. One of the objects of Clause 16 is to ensure that the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board do not pay twice for water in respect of the same premises. With that explanation of the real purpose of the clause, I hope the noble Lord may not feel disposed to press his Amendment.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: This illustrates one of the difficulties we shall encounter with nationalisation. As the noble Lord said, we must come down to hard facts, and he has put them before us. But it is surely a very hard fact for the local authority which are supplying water in an area where there is a greatly increased consumption on the part of some nationalised industry, not to receive any benefit in increased rates. I agree that there is the standard amount, but it is a long shot before that helps the local authority. I can see the difficulties in the way of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the consideration that this is the type of trouble which is going to grow in this country; and we shall have difficulties affecting many local authorities unless we can find some means of adjusting them.
  LORD POLWARTH: I must admit that I am not entirely satisfied with the noble Lord's answer. I appreciate that this particular Amendment would probably not meet the case, but I feel that we shall have to see whether we can find some solution to this. Of course, any increase in general consumption will be reflected in the general increase in the total amount of rates payable by these authorities, and I can only assume from the noble Lord's answer that if justice is to be done perhaps he is

  473
  considering the day when all the water supply authorities may be under the same control. In that case, fairness might be achieved; but we have not quite reached that stage yet. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Provisions as to orders under section 16 of the principal Act]:
  LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the same order that provides for a combination of local water authorities to empower the combination to borrow money. If the order gives the combination this power, they will then have available to them the borrowing powers of Part XII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 26, leave out ("(other than the power to borrow money)").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Although this appears to be a very long Amendment, I can assure your Lordships that it is merely drafting. The new clause consists of subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 3, which are moved from Part I of the Bill, which deals with rating, to Part III, where provisions relating to the supply of water for non-domestic purposes are more appropriate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 24, page 18, line 21, insert the following new Clause—
  Provisions as to supply of water to agricultural subjects
  "25.—(1) Where a supply of water for purposes other than domestic purposes is provided for premises being agricultural lands and heritages, the local water authority shall require the supply to be taken either by meter or on other specified terms as they may from time to time in their discretion determine.
  (2) Where a local water authority supply water by meter for purposes other than domestic purposes to any premises being agricultural lands and heritages and also supply water for domestic purposes to any dwelling house comprised in such premises, the authority shall, if it is reasonably practicable so to do, provide the whole supply of water to such premises and dwelling house through a single meter.
  (3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) of this Section upon a local water authority shall, in relation to premises being agricultural lands and heritages on the appointed day, be exercised by them as soon as may be after the appointed day and in any case not later than the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26:
  Termination of right to supply of water on special terns
  (8) No local water authority shall after the appointed day by agreement or otherwise incur any obligation of the kind to which this Section applies.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit subsection (8).
  The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I would like to draw your Lordships.' attention to what seems to me to be something of an anomaly, and the noble Lord, in his reply, may be able to clear it up. Clause 24 (3) directs every local water authority to keep a register into which they shall enter particulars of agreements for supplying non-domestic water on special terms and conditions. On the other hand, Clause 26 prohibits local authorities from entering into agreements to supply water, domestic or otherwise, on preferential terms. There is an apparent contradiction between those two clauses, with the result that local authorities would appear to be able in future to conclude only disadvantageous agreements. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the Government, and possibly the noble Lord may be able to explain.
  Then, going further, it seems to us desirable that local authorities should not be precluded from entering into special arrangements with large users of water which may result in their ratepayers benefiting. It might be very advantageous on wide grounds for a local authority to grant special terms to a factory or paper mill, or something of the kind coming into the district. I hope there is no intention in the Bill of prohibiting local authorities from making such an agreement. Perhaps the noble Lord could advise us on this matter.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I think I can give the noble Lord a fairly satisfactory assurance. Take the case of a number of large organisations requiring a considerable quantity of water and seeking to take water out of one of the Scottish lochs, say; they make a bargain with the water authority that, in return for their laying the pipes and carrying a certain amount of capital expenditure, they should be allowed advantageous terms. It is intended that that kind of bargain should be allowed to continue—and there is no reason why it should not, because one of the parties would be bearing part of the capital expenditure. But the kind of deal which it is proposed to prohibit in future is the case where an owner of land might say "Unless you agree to give me a certain amount of water, entirely free, I will not allow you to put your pipes across this field." That is an entirely different matter.
  Subsection (8) of Clause 26, which the Amendment seeks to leave out, is the logical consequence of the remainder of the clause. If local authorities are to be empowered to bring to an end, on payment of compensation, obligations undertaken by them to supply water free or on special terms—and I draw the noble Lord's attention to the word "obligation"—then it is clearly undesirable that they should still be able to incur fresh obligations of the same kind. Obligations to supply water free or on special terms were commonly incurred in the past in return for the granting of wayleaves, or of rights to take water. As a result of the passing of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, a local authority need no longer obtain way-leaves for their mains, and the procedure under which they can obtain rights to take water is all laid down in Section 21 of that Act. The main reasons for undertaking these obligations in the past, therefore, no longer apply.
  The obligations to which the subsection refers are those defined in subsection (4) of the clause—that is, obligations to supply water free of charge, or on terms more favourable than those that would otherwise apply. For that reason, subsection (8) does not strike at the power of a local water authority under Section 11 of the principal Act to enter into agreements to supply water for non-domestic purposes on other than the normal terms and conditions. It is these special agree
  476
  ments (which are not obligations to supply water) that the local water authority are required by Clause 24 to record in a register. I hope that this makes the position clear.
  LORD POLWARTH: There is evidently nothing between us on this point. It is clear that we both have the same intention; we all feel that, after all, if the authority enter into an agreement to supply a certain consumer on more favourable terms and conditions, which are not within the terms of Clause 24, they are then giving an undertaking to supply on those terms. It is just a question of words. I hope the Government will make it absolutely clear from the legal point of view and that the matter will be made water-tight. But there is obviously nothing between us on the point.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord has given us a clear explanation. So far as I have been able to follow it, I think he has cleared away the doubt I had in my own mind about helping local authorities to offer advantageous terms in the special case I have mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on an Amendment made in the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 46, leave out from ("mains") to ("exceeds") in line 2, on page 23.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 4, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.45 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Provision for renewal of tenancies of shops
  (3) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff may, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable to do so, dismiss any application under this section, and shall not determine that a tenancy shall be renewed, if he is satisfied—
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, in subsection (3) after paragraph (e) to insert:
  "(f) that the premises are reasonably required for the purpose of a scheme of redevelopment or reconstruction which will be carried out immediately after the determination of the tenancy and which cannot in the opinion of the sheriff be carried out whilst the tenant is in occupation of the premises, or"
  The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I drew attention to two points in which the Government had departed from the recommendations of the Guthrie and Taylor Committees, on which this Bill is founded, and this Amendment arises on the first of these points. It is surely desirable to encourage improvements in property, and my fear is that the Bill as it now stands may discourage the landlord from striving to make such improvements. Possibly he suffers enough discouragement already under the Town and Country Planning Act, and this seems to be an added burden. I understand that the Secretary of State felt difficulty in incorporating this provision in the Bill, because it would be difficult to define reconstruction and redevelopment, and perhaps the noble Lord in his reply could deal with that point. It seems desirable that we should give every encouragement to the improvement of property, and that was also apparently the view of the Committees. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: It is true, as the noble Lord says, that his Amendment
  478
  follows a recommendation of the Taylor and Guthrie Committees. The provision has been omitted from the Bill as it stands because the sheriff already has power to take all relevant factors into consideration and to decline a renewal of tenancy if greater hardship would be caused by granting renewal than by refusing it. Apart from the general objection—and I emphasise this—it seems to me to be wrong continually to say (as was said in another place, and as has been said in this House) that we have every confidence in the impartiality of the sheriff, and then, by drawing attention to all the relevant circumstances of the case, to try to restrict him and prevent him using his discretion. This Amendment is unacceptable because it would be extremely difficult to interpret. As the noble Lord himself has said, the Amendment does not attempt to define "redevelopment" or "reconstruction," and the vagueness of these terms might render the condition proposed open to abuse.
  The noble Lord will recollect that, in his interesting Second Reading speech on this Bill, he pointed out that the public should not be misled by thinking that a large number of people were doing these wicked things in Scotland—that is to say, that only a small minority were taking advantage of their ownership of property to act unfairly towards small shopkeepers. The noble Lord may remember that my reply was that, if only everybody would play the game, we should not need so many Acts of Parliament passed, for many of our Acts of Parliament are concerned merely with a small number of people who are not prepared to act decently towards their fellows. Therefore, the terms "redevelopment" and "reconstruction" used by the noble Lord are, I fear, open to abuse by that small minority.
  If the Amendment were accepted, it would be open to a landlord to say that he required a shop at present used as a chemist's in order to reconstruct it for use as an ice-cream shop, with a view to disposing of the premises at a profit later. In such cases, the Amendment would require the sheriff to refuse a renewal of tenancy and would take no account of hardship that would be inflicted on the tenant. It seems that the main object of the Bill would be endangered if under this Amendment, the

  479
  landlord could evict a tenant in order to alter and sell the premises at a profit. The Amendment says that the premises must be "reasonably required," that the redevelopment or reconstruction must be carried out immediately after eviction, and that in the opinion of the sheriff, the alteration cannot be carried out while the tenant remains in occupation. But I suggest that each of these conditions might easily be evaded. For instance, the landlord could claim that his reason for requiring the premises was simply to alter them and that the alterations were so substantial as to be incapable of execution unless the premises were empty. That could easily be pleaded. In general, before he comes to a decision the sheriff will no doubt consider any bona fide reason which the owner may have for resuming occupation. During the Second Reading, the noble Lord expressed the greatest confidence in the wisdom of the sheriff's decisions. I suggest that the Amendment would impose unnecessary rigidity upon the sheriff. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to leave the sheriff unhampered in making a decision after he has given full weight to all the relevant circumstances.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support this Amendment, or an Amendment having the same intent, because I noticed that at the commencement of his reply the noble Lord referred to the fact of hardship. There is hardship both ways. There is a hardship upon the tenant and there is a hardship upon the landlord; but, from what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, the hardship to which he referred was that on the tenant; he omitted altogether to refer to the hardship on the owner. I cannot see how the sheriff would be limited in his direction if it were pointed out to him, not as a direction but as something of which he has to take note, and if he is informed in the Bill that he must take notice not only of the hardship on the tenant but also of the hardship on the owner. From what Lord Morrison has said, the sheriff has a direction as regards the hardship on the tenant, but no direction as regards the hardship on the owner. At the end of his speech, the noble Lord informed us that the sheriff would have to take all these facts into account, but he did not say so at the beginning of his speech. He said some
  480
  thing quite different. I suggest to the noble Lord that my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir has made out a good case. I do not suppose for a moment that he will press this Amendment to-day, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will find a phraseology which will express what my noble friend has asked for, and what I asked for, too, on the Second Reading debate.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has explained the point of view of the Government here. I cannot claim that I am entirely satisfied but, I recognise the difficulties which the Secretary of State would have over a mandatory provision. I shall be content to rest on the assurance that the noble Lord has given that the proposals for reconstruction would undoubtedly be relevant to place before the sheriff in a case like this, and I can trust only that, if the Bill passes as it now stands, it will not hold back reasonable improvement of property.
  LORD MORRISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I reply that I appreciate perfectly that there are likely to be hardships both ways but, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 1 (3) (f) of the Bill, he will see that this is the instruction to the sheriff:
  "that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by determining that the tenancy shall be renewed than by refusing so to do."
  So that the sheriff is definitely called upon, and the Amendment that I was resisting would have said to the sheriff: "But you must take special priority for one particular reason, which is that the landlord wishes to bring about alterations to his premises." If it is left there, the sheriff has either the power to give the landlord possession, or to refuse the landlord possession. But the sheriff is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances of the case, from the point of view of hardship either to the owner or to the tenant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, after subsection (3), to add as a new subsection:
  "( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of paragraph (f) of the last foregoing subsection the sheriff shall have particular regard where the landlord is an individual who has purchased the premises before

  481
  the commencement of this Act to the circumstance that the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter of his who is over eighteen years of age either for opening up a new business or extending an existing business by bum or by such son or daughter."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment differs from the last in this essential: the former was mandatory and this is not. The noble Lord's main objection to the last Amendment was that it would be mandatory for the sheriff to allow entry to the premises if the provisions of the clause were in order, and that that would be an impossible state of affairs for the Secretary of State to deal with. When this question was discussed in Committee in another place, it was pointed out that the proposal of the Guthrie Committee—which was that a landlord, if he required the premises for himself or his son or his daughter for the extension of his business, should obtain occupation—would to a large extent defeat the intention of the Bill, because an unscrupulous landlord might gain possession and then sell the premises again, and the "racket" which we are endeavouring to put down by this Bill would be continued. It was not pressed in another place, and I accept that view, but I have attempted to meet the Government's difficulty by proposing a direction to the sheriff to have particular regard to the case I have mentioned.
  The hardship that would fall on an owner of property who was unable to resume possession for a reasonable extension of his business, was recognised in both the Committees which examined this problem in Scotland—the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee. Perhaps there is no need for me to make that argument again, because both Committees (which were certainly not biased) made it one of their recommendations; and I should have thought that if the noble Lord has not the views on property that certain very advanced sections of his supporters may have, he would admit that there were some rights in ownership, and that there was fairness in a proposal which urged that the fact that a landlord reasonably desired to occupy his own property for the purpose of the expansion of his own business should be a major consideration. As the noble Lord admits, this Bill is designed to deal with an evil which has been abroad in certain
  482
  parts of Scotland in the last year or so, but it is a relatively small number of owners of property who have stooped to the practices which we are endeavouring to eradicate here, and the vast majority of property owners have behaved and are behaving reasonably towards their tenants. I expect that is the same on both sides of the Border. Is it not then a proper thing to assume that if a landlord does require the property for the extension of his business, that should be an important consideration in the mind of the sheriff?
  I have not pressed the point that Lord Guthrie would have insisted on—namely, that this should be a mandatory provision—but instead have proposed only that the sheriff should be enjoined to consider this circumstance. The noble Lord may reply that it is unwise to fetter the sheriff in his examination of the problem. But there have been precedents before, such as in the Rent Restrictions Acts and elsewhere, where similar directions have been given. I submit to your Lordships that this is an important factor which might well be brought specially to the notice of the sheriff. Clause I contains a proviso which would appear to give some protection to the owner of the property, and perhaps the noble Lord in his reply could elaborate that—I refer to subsection (3) of Clause 1, which recites:
  "Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff may, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable to do so, dismiss any application."
  The noble Lord will, no doubt, seek to convince me that under that safeguard the interest of the landlord who requires occupation for the purpose I have mentioned is cared for. Perhaps he will succeed in convincing me that that is so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry I am unable to accept this Amendment, and it is not because I personally have any prejudices against ownership of property. My ambition since my early days was to be the owner of my own house, and I am glad I have been able to achieve that ambition. Being the owner of a house, I do not think that anybody is more entitled to live in it than the

  483
  owner of a house. He is the person most likely to take an interest in it, because it is his own. Therefore I have no prejudices in that direction. But when you suggest that in a case like this, where the sheriff has to decide, he shall take special cognizance of the fact that the landlord is asking for possession of the property for his son or daughter, that, to use a Scottish expression, is "a different kettle of fish." After all, only the other day we had a debate in this House in which noble Lords opposite most eloquently expressed concern at the rough time that the little shopkeeper is having. In taking into consideration the relative hardships, the sheriff is asked to have regard to the hardships that will accrue to the owner and his family if possession is not granted.
  He is also asked to take into consideration the hardships which may accrue to the tenant. The tenant may be a person who has throughout his lifetime built up a business in that shop. What is he going to do, and what hardship would be caused if he were to be turned out? The hardship of the tenant might be extreme. He might lose his entire livelihood and the results of a lifetime of effort in building up the business. The hardship to the landlord, if he fails to evict the tenant, might in many cases (I do not say in all) merely be that he would be unable to effect an extension of an already substantial business, or to secure by taking in a neighbouring shop an improvement in his existing accommodation. I do not say there would not be cases in which the landlord would have the stronger and the greater case of hardship, but the Government's decision is that this is a matter which the sheriff ought to be allowed to decide. We have all expressed our confidence that the sheriff will be absolutely fair, and I am perfectly sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree that there will be varying circumstances in every case. There will be a variety of circumstances which will be almost entirely different in every case. That is why we prefer to give a free hand to the sheriff to decide upon all the circumstances of the case.
  Under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, the sheriff is empowered to dismiss an application for an extension of tenancy if,
  484
  in all the circumstances, he thinks it reasonable to do so; and, in exercising this discretion, there is no doubt that he will take account of the reasons for which a landlord wishes to recover possession of the premises. Further, the sheriff is expressly required to refuse to extend a tenancy if he is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by determining that the tenancy shall be renewed than by refusing to do so. The relative measure of hardship to landlord and tenant is, therefore, left to the impartial assessment of the court, and the sheriff can be relied upon to see that justice is done. As I see this Amendment, it is intended, to some extent, at any rate, to load the dice against the tenant, and we prefer to allow the sheriff to make his decision entirely freely. This was accepted as a fair settlement by the Scottish Grand Committee in the House of Commons, and by that House itself in passing the Bill.
  May I add that it is not in dispute that a court may have regard, and there is no doubt that under the Bill as it stands it will have regard to it, to the circumstance of the landlord being the individual who wishes to take over for himself or for a son or daughter a shop he brought before the commencement of the Act? There is no doubt that that is a very important matter. But the sheriff will also be required to take into consideration many other circumstances, equally important, to which the court must have regard—for example, the loss of the tenant's livelihood—and to single out for special mention one circumstance affecting a small number of landlords would seem to imply that the court must give greater weight to that circumstance than to others not less important. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to do as the Government wish to do—leave this matter to the unfettered decision of the sheriff.
  LORD POLWARTH: There is one point to which the noble Lord has referred and to which I wish to draw attention, and that concerns the question of giving, directions to the sheriff. He has said that the sheriff is assumed to be reasonable and that he will take all the circumstances into account. I have no doubt that that is the case, but I want to draw attention to the precedent of the

  485
  Agriculture (Scotland) Act which we passed last year. Unfortunately, I have not a copy of the Act before me, so anything that I say about it now is said with a measure of caution. But I do believe it is the case that, under that Act, if a landlord lets his farm and inserts in the lease a provision that at the end of the lease he will wish to resume it for occupation, either by himself or a member of his family, the fact that that is in the lease has to be taken into consideration when any question arises of whether or not the landlord is to be allowed to take possession of the farm. As I say, I have not the Act before me so I would not attempt to quote it word by word; but I think the case is as I have stated. The only difference between it and this Bill in this connection, I believe, is that an appeal under the Agriculture Act is not to the sheriff but to the Secretary of State. The only inference I can draw from that is that while we must assume that the sheriff is a reasonable man who will take all circumstances into consideration, we are not to assume that the Secretary of State is equally reasonable.
  LORD MORRISON: I am in the same position as the noble Lord, in that I am unable to recall all the circumstances of the Agriculture Act. I would point out that the sheriff would naturally take into account the consideration to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. The other point which I would like to bring to the noble Lord's notice—and it seems to me a reasonable point—is that this matter has given rise to a very acute position in Scotland. A Committee were appointed, and they have considered and reported to the effect that the circumstances were not very serious but that if there were an alarming increase in the trouble they would become serious. In a period of a few months, if I am correctly informed, there has been an alarming increase, and members of all political Parties have made strong representations to the Government to take special steps to endeavour to get this Bill on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. What I fear is that if we at this stage insert an Amendment of this kind in the Bill, the effect would be that while we close one door (and that is the intention of the Bill) we shall at the same time be opening another. I will not say that this has happened in Scotland, but I know
  486
  that it has happened in England, and I fear that what has happened here may happen in Scotland if safeguards are not speedily provided.
  There have been cases in which county court judges generally have decided that, if a landlord wanted possession of his own house, since it was his own house he ought to have it if possible. Orders for possession have been made when the landlord has pleaded that he needs the house for a son or a daughter about to be married. A short time after the order has been made, in a number of instances, the property has been put up for sale at a much higher price than was put upon it before, and in those circumstances the court has not been able to do anything. This sort of thing has become almost a scandal, and I am glad to say that county court judges are now taking much greater precautions to see that applications for possession are genuine. In the case of Scotland, perhaps this evil has not been so great, but undoubtedly there are people about of the "get-rich-quick" type who try to make money by these methods in as short a space of time as possible. These, of course, are but a few among the multitude of honest and decent landlords and tenants.
  All that is desired and is provided for in this Bill is that the case shall be presented fairly and properly to the sheriff so that he will be able to make up his mind on all the facts as to the party on which the greater hardship is likely to fall and as to whom the tenancy should be given. I ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is worth while taking the risk that, while closing a door on a scandal which has caused a great deal of distress to many innocent people in Scotland (by reason of the attempts of unscrupulous people to make a great deal of money), we may well at the same time be opening another door. The result of such action might necessitate the introduction of another emergency measure before a further twelve months have passed.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: I welcome the noble Lord's frank avowal, as a property owner himself, that he has no prejudice against property owners. He has also stated, quite categorically, that the circumstances which I mentioned would be for the consideration of the sheriff, both

  487
  in relation to paragraph (f), in regard to hardship, and also to the first lines of subsection (3)—all the circumstances concerned in the case. Frankly, I think it would not have been unreasonable to press this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has rested his arguments for the Bill on the importance of the Committee's Report, but has disregarded some of its important provisions, of which this is one. When it was pointed out that a mandatory clause would be embarrassing, I changed my ground, and proposed a direction to take the circumstances into account. I do not think that such a direction would have been embarrassing.
  The noble Lord speaks of something which he has seen in England—I cannot, of course, say what he has seen there—and he seems concerned as to what would happen in Scotland if such a provision as this were included in the Bill. For my own part, I think that a hard-headed Scottish sheriff would not fall into any such trap. I think this would have been a proper condition to apply, but we are united in both Houses in wishing to facilitate the passage of this Bill. If we vote on this and insert the Amendment, and there should be disagreement subsequently in another place, the result would undoubtedly be delay, and this would make it difficult to start the new arrangement speedily. In my opening speech on the Second Reading I agreed to do my best to see this measure on the Statute Book by the May term. Therefore, I will not press my Amendment and, with the assurance which the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  LORD MORRISON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Citation, extent, interpretation and duration]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that the terms of the Bill will apply to a shop within the meaning of the Shops Acts of 1912, 1934 and 1936. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.
  Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In this Act the expression 'shop' includes any shop within the meaning of the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1936, or any of those Acts.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL
  4.19 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I wish to make a brief statement, because as this is an agreed measure and there are no Amendments to be considered, this will be the last opportunity which I shall have of making this statement. In Column 298 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, there appears a report of my speech on the Second Reading, from which it will be seen that I dealt very fully with the means to be adopted to enable the cost of social insurance in Northern Ireland to be met out of taxation raised in that country. I mentioned that the figure, although not a firm figure but a figure which had to be taken into consideration, amounted to 2½ per cent. of the total expenditure on social insurance for the United Kingdom. I then concluded my remarks upon those points with these words:
  "The Agreement with which this Bill deals will run for three years, as provided in Paragraph 2 (iii) of the Schedule. At the end of that period it will be reviewed, and this figure of 2½ per cent. may, if necessary, be changed to meet the circumstances of the time."
  Unfortunately the Editor of Debates, in paragraphing my speech, parted the paragraph at the commencement of the passage I have just read instead of at the end, the consequence being that the words quoted have gone into the succeeding paragraph and have become involved with the arguments of that paragraph, and now some doubt has been raised as to whether the 2½ per cent. that I have mentioned can be altered administratively, as the Agreement provides. However, I have gone into the matter and I propose

  489
  to ask the Editor of Debates, as I think I am entitled to do in this case, to include the words that I have quoted in their proper paragraph, so as not to occasion any doubt whatever on the powers which are included in the Agreement.
  I should perhaps add that the question of whether the share to be covered by the Northern Ireland Government shall be 2½ per cent., more or less, is determined after discussion between the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland. When agreement has been reached, that agreement will be referred to the Joint Exchequer Board, which was established by the Government of Northern Ireland Act, 1920, and the Exchequer Board will decide to approve or not to approve. I mention that because it must be clear in this matter that the Agreement gives elasticity and powers of variation.
  Looking at the paragraph which succeeds the one with which I have dealt, I find it desirable to make a further explanation, because under Paragraph 5 of the Agreement further powers to make adjustments in working arrangements can be made in the way I have mentioned. Bills will, therefore, not be submitted to this Parliament at such frequent intervals as they have been during the past. Indeed, it is only when proposals are made which will change the Agreement in principle or in character, requiring a new Agreement for that purpose, that the matter will be brought back to the Parliaments of the two countries for decision. With that statement, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, while sympathising with the noble Lord in the explanation he has just given the House, may I ask when he first discovered this? Would it not have been a good thing to have had a look through the report and to check it over, to see whether he had been accurately reported?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, after I have made a speech of some length, I usually take the course of going down to the Editorial room to examine it, but
  490
  it will be remembered that my speech now referred to was made at a late hour and I omitted to do so on this occasion. I regret that very much.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, which clears up any misconception which may have arisen through the report of his speech.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  House resumed.

  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
  4.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Saving as respects Belvedere Road, Upper Ground and Jenkins Street for persons having statutory powers]:
  LORD AMMON: This Amendment may be called a tidying-up Amendment. It ensures that subsection (2) covers all the apparatus of the different undertakings concerned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 23, leave out ("or wires") and insert ("wires or other works or apparatus").—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 [For protection of Port of London Authority]:
  LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, after subsection (8) to insert:
  (" (9) In respect of any such landing stage which is not temporary, the Council shall make to the port authority such payments as the port authority may require, being payments of the like nature as, and not exceeding, those which the port authority could have required as consideration for the grant of a licence to erect the landing stage under Section two hundred

  491
  and forty-three of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, and the amount of that consideration shall be determined in accordance with Section two hundred and fifty-four of that Act:
  Provided that in determining the amount of that consideration regard shall be had to the public purposes for which the landing stage is made.")
  The noble Lord said: Noble Lords who were present at the Second Reading may recall that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that a suitable Amendment would be set down to safeguard the position of the Port of London Authority. The powers sought by the Amendment are to ensure that the Port Authority receive a rental from the London County Council in respect of the permanent landing stage authorised in this Bill, as they would have done if the work had been carried out under a licence granted by the Port of London Authority under the 1920 Act.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AMMON: This Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 6, after ("section") insert ("(except subsection (9) thereof)").—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:
  For protection of certain water, gas and hydraulic power undertakers.
  (".—(1) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—

  (a) 'undertakers' means the Metropolitan Water Board, The North Thames Gas Board, the South Eastern Gas Board or the London Hydraulic Power Company;

  (b) 'operators' means the Commission or Council, and references to the acts or defaults of the operators include the acts or defaults of their contractors, agents, workmen or servants or any person in their employ;

  (c) 'apparatus' means any pipes, mains, siphons, plugs, wires or other works of the undertakers in or under any street;

  (d) 'the authorised works' means the works authorised by section one of this Act;

  492

  (e) 'specified work' means such part of any of the authorised works as in its execution in or under any street will or may interfere with any apparatus;

  (f) 'plans' means plans, sections or descriptions.

  (2) At least fourteen days before commencing to execute any specified work the operators shall deliver to the undertakers plans of the specified work; and if it should appear to the undertakers that the specified work will interfere with or endanger their apparatus, or impede the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power, the undertakers may within fourteen days after the receipt by them of the plans give notice to the operators to lower or otherwise alter the position of such apparatus or to support the same or to substitute other apparatus in such manner as may be necessary.
  (3) Where notice is given by the undertakers under the last foregoing subsection, the protective works required by the notice shall be done and executed by and at the expense of the operators but to the satisfaction and under the superintendence of the engineer of the undertakers (if after notice given by the operators to the undertakers of the time and place of such execution the engineer chooses to attend), and the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of such superintendence shall be paid by the operators:
  Provided that, if the undertakers by notice in writing to the operators within seven days after the receipt by the undertakers of notice of the intended commencement by the operators of the specified work so require, the undertakers may themselves do and execute such protective works, and the operators shall on the completion thereof pay to the undertakers the reasonable expenses incurred by them in the execution of such protective works.
  (4) Where no notice is given by the undertakers under subsection (2) of this section with respect to any specified work, the work may be executed, but not otherwise than in accordance with the plans delivered under that subsection.
  (5) The undertakers may if they deem fit employ watchmen or inspectors to watch and inspect any specified work during its execution, repair or renewal where any apparatus of the undertakers will be interfered with or affected thereby, and the reasonable wages of such watchmen or inspectors shall be borne by the operators and be paid by them to the undertakers.
  (6) The operators shall indemnify the undertakers against all claims, demands, proceedings, costs, damages and expenses made or taken against or recovered from or incurred by the undertakers by reason or in consequence of any interruption in the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power by the undertakers which may, without the written authority of the undertakers, be in any way occasioned either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works, or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators; and the operators shall pay to the undertakers the value of any gas or water

  493
  which the undertakers may lose by reason of the acts or defaults of the operators in the execution of any specified work.
  (7) The reasonable expense of all repairs or renewals of any apparatus of the undertakers or any works in connection therewith which may at any time hereafter be rendered necessary either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators, or which may during the construction or within twelve months after the completion of any of the authorised works be rendered necessary by any subsidence resulting from that work, shall be borne and paid by the operators.
  (8) Notwithstanding the stopping up of any street under the powers of paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to this Act, the undertakers may exercise the same rights of access as they now enjoy to any apparatus of the undertakers (including apparatus not situate in or under a street):
  Provided that, in exercising the rights of access saved by this subsection, the undertakers, their engineers or workmen or others in the employ of the undertakers shall not interrupt the execution, maintenance or use of any works of the operators by this or any other Act authorised, and the undertakers shall compensate the operators for any damage to such last mentioned works occasioned by the exercise of the said rights.
  (9) The operators shall not in the execution of any specified work raise, sink or otherwise alter the position of any apparatus, or alter the level of any street in which such apparatus is situate, so as to leave over such apparatus in any part a covering of less than the existing covering or three feet, whichever may be the less (unless the operators shall in such case protect such apparatus from injury by artificial covering to the reasonable satisfaction of the undertakers) or of more than the existing covering or five feet, which may be the greater.
  (10) Any difference arising between the operators and the undertakers under this section shall be referred to and settled by a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
  (11) In settling any question under this section an arbitrator shall have regard to any duties or obligations which the undertakers may be under in respect of their apparatus and to any duties or obligations which the operators may be under in respect of the specified work, and may if he thinks fit require the operators to execute any works so as to avoid so far as may be practicable interference with any purpose for which the apparatus of the undertakers is used."
  The noble Lord said: This new clause is not so formidable as the length of it might seem to indicate. The general lines of the clause were agreed upon between the agents of the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board, the South Eastern Gas Board and
  494
  the London Hydraulic Power Company. The matters in respect of which protection is given are all of the kind normally found in such a clause, and are based to a considerable extent on Section 89, of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1934, as amended by Section 71 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1935. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ammon.)
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: This is a somewhat substantial after-thought. The clause starts on page 1, covers page 2, covers page 3 and overlaps on page 4 of the list of Amendments. Generally, when a substantial addendum is made to a Bill it is done for one of two reasons: either circumstances have arisen since the Bill was drafted to make it necessary, or the Government have been extremely remiss in their original drafting. I agree with the noble Lord that this new clause is not so formidable as it looks, but it will form part of the solid backbone of the Bill. I only hope that there are no other omissions so substantial, because if there are this Bill will not be the bridge between the good intentions the noble Lord expressed on Second Reading and the good results that we all hope to see flow from it.
  LORD AMMON: I accept the admonition.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SPEED LIMIT IN RURAL AREAS
  4.31 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR rose to call attention to the increasing number of lengths of road rural areas which are being subjected to the 30 miles per hour speed limit; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in 1934 your Lordships passed the Road Traffic Act which imposed a speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas. That Act states in Section 1:
  "For the purposes of this Act a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built up area—
  (a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon."

  495
  I would ask your Lordships to note the words "street lighting," because the point I wish to make this afternoon is that these lights are now being placed, not in what one can call streets but, in many cases, in lengths of rural roads. I have no quarrel with the 1934 Act, or with the definition of what is deemed to be a built-up area, but a lot has happened since 1934. What has been happening since then, and to an ever-increasing extent since the war, is that many lengths of road, in areas which could not conceivably be described as built-up, are being restricted to a limit of 30 miles per hour simply by the operation of a completely automatic procedure under which, directly street lamps are erected on the road at the proper intervals, a speed limit is thereby imposed. Without any authority being consulted, the signs are erected. So long as they are erected in streets or in built-up or urban areas, I have no complaint. But it is increasingly noticeable that these lights, and consequently these speed limit signs, are being erected in what can be described only as open country, where there may be a few houses here and there.
  I am sure all your Lordships will be able to call to mind lengths of road such as those to which I refer. I have with me a list of some of the roads which have been restricted during the last three years. It is not a complete list—it is taken, I am informed, more or less at random—but it includes over fifty lengths of road, totalling a considerable mileage, which have been restricted to a speed limit during those three years. I have in mind particularly one of the roads on this list. It has a length of over 2,000 yards and, from my knowledge of it, may be described as open country, with only a house here and there. I think—though I am not certain—that it is in the district of a rural district council. I have in mind other lengths of road, as I know we all have, where restrictions are imposed which obviously should not be imposed under the spirit of the 1934 Act, even if they are there under the letter of that Act.
  To me there seems to be no logic or reason for this position; but I suppose I shall be told that the fact that there is no logic in it is an asset, rather than a liability! It is this automatic procedure
  496
  of which I wish to complain this afternoon. I would like to mention another road, by way of example. On the road to Brighton (A.23) there is a place called Sayers Common. In 1947 the lighting authority—which is the parish council in this case—decided to put up lights on this road, and they did so. The road authority—that is, the Minister—did not want the road to be restricted, and the county council did not want the road to be restricted. Nevertheless, the road was automatically restricted as soon as the lights were put up, and it remained restricted for over eight months. The restrictions were then removed, and it has not been restricted since. The point is that for eight months a restriction was imposed which nobody except the parish council wanted—and that on a trunk road. The fact that the restriction was eventually removed, surely, shows that it was wrong in the first place; but it was allowed to slow down the traffic on a very important road for over eight months. That is an example of what is going on, and no doubt many similar cases could be quoted.
  I do not believe that when Parliament passed the 1934 Act it was ever intended that the speed limit should apply to such roads as these. I should make it clear, perhaps, that I am not quarrelling for this purpose with the principle that roads in built-up areas should be subject to a speed limit—although there is a case against any speed limit. The case against any speed limit rests, I think, mostly upon the fact that it is extremely difficult to enforce. Having in mind only these rural roads, I suggest to your Lordships that it is a bad thing, and contrary to public policy, that these rural roads should be restricted, if for no other reason than that it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce these speed limits.
  I suggest with confidence that any law which cannot be enforced ought not to be on the Statute Book. It is a bad thing for the country that we should have laws which are not enforced, particularly where they create a criminal offence. It is a notorious fact to-day, I think, that this particular law is not being properly enforced. If that be so, it is most unwise to create additional areas in which, equally, it will not be enforced. It is merely setting a temptation to motorists to break the law. In my respectful

  497
  opinion, that is always wrong. I feel that this is an unhealthy tendency.
  I do not want to detain the House by quoting many more exam pies. It is a short point, but one which I feel is of importance and substance. What I have in mind is to try to obtain from His Majesty's Government some indication of future policy with regard to these lengths of road. The little evil to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention is increasing daily. Each time one goes out in the country in a car one never knows where one is going to see a new speed limit sign. They suddenly appear. It may be that roads will be further restricted to an increasing extent. I have no objection whatever to the lighting of rural roads. If it makes any difference to the safety of the roads, makes them safer rather than less safe; and I certainly do not want to say a word against the lighting of these roads. If it be the wish of the local authority that they should be illuminated, let it be so; but I do protest against the automatic restriction which the lighting of the road implies. I would like the noble Lord who is to reply to give me an indication of the Government's policy; to say just when this procedure is to be ended and how it is to be done, and to give some assurance to motorists that some steps will be taken. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.41 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has put down this Motion, and I wish to support it. I would draw your Lordships' attention to Paragraph 22 of the recommendations of the Alness Committee, who I think are by far the most able Committee who have ever inquired into road accidents and road questions generally in this country. Paragraph 22 says.
  "The Committee consider that, although the speed limit should in many cases be retained, restricted areas should be reduced in number or extent. It is not possible adequately to enforce the speed limit on the roads and streets which are at present restricted and which in cumulo amount to nearly a third of the total mileage in Great Britain. The degree of danger caused by speed varies with the driver and the car. The man who is driving dangerously at 30 m.p.h. in heavy traffic is a greater menace to other road users than the man who is driving well on a clear road at a greater speed. … In some parts of industrial England to-day motorists travel over long stretches of road, all of which are restricted The driver is, as a result, inclined to become sleepy and less
  498
  alert, and he is apt to watch his speedometer rather than the road. Unnecessary restricted areas therefore become a sense of irritation and danger. Moreover, the driver is given a false impression, viz.: that he has always the right to travel at 30 m.p.h."
  The point is that if you want a law observed, it should meet with more or less general consent. I am able to state this afternoon that the motoring organisations as a whole support the principle of the 30 miles per hour speed limit where it is really necessary, but they do plead—as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pleaded so eloquently this afternoon—that the 30 miles per hour speed limit should not be imposed in areas where it is clearly unnecessary.
  I will give the House only two instances of the type of road I mean. Those of your Lordships who play golf may know Mitcham Golf Course. The road from Mitcham to Croydon goes across Mitcham Common, with the golf course on one side and open common on the other. There is absolutely nothing, except one cross road in the middle of the Common, and the view of that is not obstructed in any way; one can see whether there is a car coming on the main road or on the subsidiary road. A stretch of about two miles of that road is a restricted road, and that is exactly where the police go out in their police cars to catch the driver who is momentarily exceeding the speed limit. Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear," but would it not be much more sensible—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We are all with you.
  EARL HOWE: Would it not be more reasonable to de-restrict that road, and to drop more heavily upon the driver who exceeds the limit in a part of the country or town whether the limit is really required? I will give another instance for the benefit of Scottish members. Noble Lords from Scotland will know the road from Edinburgh to Queensferry. That road, as far as Cramond Bridge, is a restricted road and is about 40 ft. or 50 ft. wide. It is true that on one side there is a row of houses—a very had case of ribbon development—but on the other side there is a wall and it is quite impossible for people to dart across the road. Again, that is a road upon which a driver would not expect a speed limit. If he happens

  499
  to be momentarily distracted as he passes the sign, there is nothing at all in the character of the road to let him know that he is in a restricted area. That is where the police are extraordinarily active in that part of the world. I believe there is one member of your Lordships' House—it is not I—whom the police have tried hard to catch on that stretch of road. Whether they have been successful or not I do not know, but the whole thing is really rather absurd.
  Could this question be examined—perhaps it is already being examined—with the idea of de-restricting a road where the need for the speed limit is not obvious, and where it can be done without causing conditions of danger? None of us wants to increase danger on the road—not a single member of your Lordships' House would support that—but in order to make the speed limit more effective and to ensure that it is observed where it ought to be, we do ask that it shall be taken off the roads where it is nothing but a nuisance and provocation to people. I therefore beg to support the noble Lord's Motion.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long, but if my recollection serves me aright—and I was in another place at the time of the passing of the Act to which we are referring—the fact that a road had lights upon it was only a general guide as to whether that road had the 30 miles per hour restriction placed upon it. It was within the power of the Ministry of Transport, upon application from a local authority, either to restrict a piece of road which had not these lights on it, or to de-restrict a piece of road which had lights on it. This question of lights was merely a rough guide which, of course, in 90 per cent. of the cases, was a very proper guide as to what should be a restricted area. We are now dealing with the 10 per cent. of roads where there are lights, where there are no houses or danger spots and where, in consequence, the road should not be restricted. It is probably well known to more members of your Lordships' House than to my noble friend who has just sat down, that the police find it easier to get some return for their labours if they confine their
  500
  activities to one of those stretches of roads which ought not to be restricted at all, and upon which the motorist who does not watch for his lamp post quite so carefully as he should is liable to exceed the speed limit.
  What I would suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply is that, with this kind of road, the imposition of a speed limit might be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised the question of the Brighton road going over a common. What I presume happened there was that eight months elapsed between the time that representations were made by the local council, who did not want the road restricted, and the time that the Ministry of Transport agreed that it should not be a restricted road. I would suggest that that kind of procedure can well be hastened. Where it is known that lights are to be put up on a completely open piece of road, the action of the local authorities should be started before the lights are actually placed in position. Then from the word "Go" a road which nobody wants as a restricted road would not have a restriction put on it, which has only to be taken off when eventually the application has "gone through the mill," from the local authority to the Government Department and back again. It seems in this particular case to have taken that rather long period of eight months. Cannot this procedure be hastened? Cannot the Minister look into some of these things, and in particular into the case where a piece of road is restricted which ought not to be restricted? If that were done, the motorist could keep the law—which is what we all want—and the police could divert their activities to these parts of the road which ought to have a 30 miles per hour limit.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it is somewhat unfortunate that, in a House which contains a good many noble Lords with expert knowledge of motoring, this debate should have to be very brief, and to a certain extent superficial, because a number of members of the House desire to get on to another subject. I should like to say at the outset, particularly with regard to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that I will see the views expressed are brought

  501
  to the notice of the Government Department concerned. Furthermore, I would suggest that any noble Lord who may have further glaring examples which ought to be looked into, and who cares to do so, should send details direct to me. I will certainly see that they are examined.
  EARL HOWE: May I ask whether, if the motor organisations send the noble Lord examples of the sort of stretches of road which are in question, he will ask the Minister of Transport to review the whole question?
  LORD MORRISON: Yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, some motoring organisations—I do not know whether they include the one in which the noble Earl., Lord Howe, is interested—are particularly vigilant in these matters, and frequently bring to the Minister's notice roads which are restricted as a result of lighting and which, in their opinion, ought to be de-restricted. Only recently, they have submitted a list of thirty such lengths of road to the Minister, and this list is receiving his attention. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said it would be wrong for us to pass laws which cannot be enforced, and I fully agree with that, as we all do. Unfortunately, this law was passed in 1934, and that is going rather a long way back. The difficulty in 1934, as some of us remember, was that the definition of what was a built-up area for the purposes of the Act, was a very difficult one to make. It was exhaustively examined, on a non-Party basis. It became clear that it would be an impracticable task to examine every road in the country, and that some general criterion would have to be adopted with a provision for exceptions in individual cases.
  The roads and areas which could be regarded as built-up have, as a rule, street lighting, and it was accordingly decided that all roads having a proper system of street lighting should prima facie be regarded as a built-up area and subject to the speed limit. That was the criterion which was embodied in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a thirty miles per hour speed limit on roads in a built-up area which, for this purpose, are defined as "roads furnished with a system of street lighting by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart." In order to meet cases where the road, although lit, was not in a built-up
  502
  area, and other cases, where although in a built-up area the road was not lit, the Act provided for the making of orders which deem a road to be in a built-up area (and therefore subject to the 30 mile per hour speed limit) although not lit; or, conversely deem a road provided with street lighting not to be a built-up area (and therefore to free it from the speed limit).
  Except in the case of trunk roads, and roads within the London Traffic Area (where orders are made by the Minister), such orders are made by the appropriate local authority, subject to the Minister's consent. The Minister also has power to de-restrict any lighted road, subject to a local inquiry if necessary, if the local authority refuse to do so. This criterion of street lighting has, on the whole, worked well and has achieved the objects for which it was devised. Before deciding upon it, Parliament examined the numerous alternatives, and experience has not disclosed anything better. Whatever criterion is adopted, there are bound to be some borderline eases upon which opinions will differ, and if any noble Lord here has anything better as a criterion to suggest, I have no doubt the Government will be prepared to consider it. The criterion has the advantages that it is simple, and readily understood; the lamp posts provide a useful and universally recognised indication of the speed limit; it is administratively impossible to impose a speed limit by the method of examining each road individually; and the powers to deem a road with street lighting not to be in a built-up area are adequate to cover cases where street lighting would impose an unnecessary speed limit.
  It is true also that street lighting is often provided on roads in rural areas, where building is scattered and sparse, and it is in this type of case that differences in view most often arise. It is also true that in rural areas the lighting authority is often a parish council, who do not always have regard to the needs of traffic when a speed limit is imposed by the street lighting they have provided; and accordingly they do not always press the appropriate local authority to make an order de-restricting such roads when the speed limit is not required. Since the war, however, there have been stringent restrictions on the provision of new street

  503
  lighting, and, as a rule, if it is at all substantial, it cannot be carried out without a licence from the Minister. The Minister does not issue such licence unless the lighting is necessary for traffic safety or for police purposes. This means that most new street lighting has been put up in genuinely built-up areas, where a speed limit is justified. The Minister's divisional road engineers are careful to see that trunk roads are not unnecessarily restricted by the erection of street lighting.
  In general, local authorities have co-operated well in the de-restriction of lighted roads where a speed limit is not justified. During the past ten months about thirty orders have been made de-restricting roads with street lighting, and altogether there are more than 1,000 miles of lighted roads that have had the speed limit removed from them by order. The machinery for seeing that the speed limit is rightly applied for its purpose is therefore active. There are bound to be cases, however, where there is a genuine difference of view between local authorities and those who wish to see the roads as free as possible. In disputed cases the Minister has to hold the balance as fairly as he can.
  In order to secure as much uniformity as possible in the practice of local authorities, the Minister has under consideration, with the assistance of the Road Safety Committee, the question whether it would be helpful to give them further guidance for coming to a decision in doubtful cases. Some months ago, the Minister asked the Road Safety Committee to consider the general policy in relation to speed limits, in order to see what advice can usefully be given to local authorities. They submitted a report which has been referred back to them for further consideration on certain points. I am not able to say how far the Minister will be able to go in giving advice. I give that information merely to show that this matter is receiving the active attention of the Minister.
  Before I go on, I want to say that one should try to look at all sides of the question. John Stuart Mill once said that the man who knows only one side of a question does not even know that. It must be borne in mind that while the population continues to grow, and the
  504
  Government are pursuing a vigorous housing programme, the number of built-up areas must inevitably increase; and this will result automatically in an appreciable increase in the number of roads subject to the speed limit. The Minister is under constant pressure from local authorities and local residents—this was the point I wanted to make; it is not a political point—to agree to new speed limits on roads in or near housing estates and, moreover, proposals for de-restricting even the more important traffic routes, such as trunk roads, are often opposed by petitions from local residents affected by them. We may think that they are wrong in doing that, but we all know that it happens.
  While figures for new roads made subject to a speed limit during the past year are not yet available, during the year ended March 31, 1948, the total length of roads in all areas subject to the speed limit rose by 1,483 miles. It is unlikely that the increase in the mileage of roads so restricted during the past year is very different from the increase during the year ended March 31, 1948. Moreover, most restricted roads are minor roads in towns and cities, and other built-up areas which are not important for through traffic, and where, beyond question, a speed limit is necessary in the interests of safety. Only 1,367 miles of trunk road, out of a total of 8,189 miles, are subject to a speed limit. This represents just under 17 per cent. of the total mileage of trunk roads.
  I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the Minister recognises that the application of the speed limit under the 1934 Road Traffic Act needs special attention in rural areas, because in the face of local opinion, which is usually against the removal of a speed limit, local authorities are sometimes reluctant to de-restrict roads which ought not to have a speed limit. There is no such difficulty, however, in respect of unlighted roads which are subjected to a speed limit by order. Such orders are, if the roads are trunk roads or roads in the London Traffic Area, made by the Minister; otherwise, they are made by local authorities, subject to the consent of the Minister. In every case, therefore, the Minister must be satisfied that such a speed limit is necessary before an order is made; so that speed limits are not

  505
  imposed unnecessarily on unlighted roads, either in urban or in rural areas.
  To sum up, the Minister asks me to say that he is satisfied that the general criterion of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a speed limit automatically where there is proper street lighting, together with the powers to de-restrict lighted roads or to restrict unlighted roads by order, has worked well in practice and is generally satisfactory. He does not think that it is practicable or necessary to adopt some other criterion for roads in rural areas. To attempt to do so would raise precisely the same problems which were discussed so fully before the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. Moreover, the difficulty of defining what is a rural or urban area would, for the purposes of applying a speed limit, be almost impossible to overcome satisfactorily. I can only repeat that I shall see that the Minister and the Department give consideration to the specific cases mentioned by the noble Lord, and I will have them looked into.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that informative and full reply to my Motion. I want to say only two or three words more. The noble Lord mentioned a criterion which was applied in 1934. I agree that that was at that time the best criterion that could be devised, but I have grave doubts as to whether it is now. The reason is simply that so many country roads are now being lighted. The noble Lord said there were now stringent restrictions upon lighting. What will happen when those restrictions are removed? This problem will then be doubly acute, and I have graver doubts still whether the criterion will then be good, and whether it will be possible to apply it—but that is a matter for the future.
  I have carefully noted what the noble Lord said and I should like to finish with this remark. On the particular stretch of road which I have in mind, and which prompted me to put down this Motion, I see that lights have recently been put up, the speed limits immediately following, but—and I say this without any political motive—I have noticed no new houses. All the houses there have been there for
  506
  years and years. Again, I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  THE WEST AFRICAN COLONIES
  5.7 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation in the West African Colonies; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the Motion that stands in my name, I should like to say how much I regret to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who, I understand, was to have replied to this debate, is indisposed. I also very much regret the inconvenience caused to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who, at very short notice, is going to reply in his stead. I would willingly have postponed the debate had it been possible, but I thought it better to get this particular Motion out of the way. At the end of the debate on February 15 on the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance which appeared in the Extraordinary Gazette, I gave notice of my intention to raise questions regarding certain political and economic features in the Gold Coast which, in my opinion, were unsatisfactory. I gave notice of these to the noble Viscount who was to have replied. They fall into three parts. They are, first, the situation of the cocoa industry in the Gold Coast—a matter which was raised last year; secondly, the outcome and consequences of the Watson Commission and, finally, the Immigration Ordinance to which the debate of February 15 related.
  It was my contention then that this Ordinance was one of a series of events which have taken place in the Gold Coast which point to the un satisfactory state of the administration out there and of the policy which is being pursued in conducting the government of that country. Of course, it is not for me to say upon whom the responsibility for that lies, because in practice it is impossible for us to know how far the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State and how far with the local Government. We are aware that the Government of the Gold Coast, which is one of the first Governments in Africa to be liberalised since

  507
  the late war, has an unofficial majority and a local opinion which is not only very vocal but is not always easy to direct along those lines which we should all like to see it follow. Nevertheless, the situation in the Gold Coast is one which has given rise to growing anxiety over a fairly widespread field. The Gold Coast is of the utmost importance to the community of the Commonwealth as a whole, to its own inhabitants of course, and to the people of this country who have devoted so much life, capital and devotion to the development of the Colony in the last forty or fifty years. Therefore, when we see things there taking place, which I claim can be seen and which appear to us to be unsatisfactory, it is necessary not only to raise questions about them but also to express the hope that some modification may take place in a policy which seems to be leading to a worse situation.
  In the debate on cocoa in your Lordships' House in September of last year, reference was made to the scourge of swollen shoot, the number of trees infected and the unsatisfactory nature of the remedies which had been applied by the Government. If I may summarise that debate, I should say that it was common ground that attention had been drawn to this scourge in the latter years of the war and notably by, amongst others, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the course of his duties there as Minister of State. It was nevertheless clear from the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave, that the remedy applied—namely, the cutting out of trees—had been so unsuccessful that by September 15 the infection had spread to some 50,000,000 trees out of an estimated number of 400,000,000 in the Colony. In that period, only a limited number of trees had been cut out—the only remedy then known and now known to deal with this disastrous situation. The consequence has been a steady decline in the output of cocoa and a resultant severe diminution of dollar returns, because of the quantity of cocoa taken by the United States. It was a point of criticism then that the Government, in deference to agitators on the Gold Coast, had not taken sufficiently energetic steps to combat this scourge, and moreover that they had not even succeeded in filling the establishment of
  508
  personnel which had been approved, modest as it was, to deal with this matter. I understand that since then recruiting has improved and that the still rather small personnel establishment is now more or less complete.
  A short time ago (actually on March 1 last) I inquired of His Majesty's Government what was the position in regard to the spread of swollen shoot, and, as your Lordships will be aware, received the reply that since September 15 of last year a further 4,000,000 trees were estimated to have become infected, but that in that interval 1,134,653 trees had been cut out. It is apparent from those figures that the rate of cutting out, though still only approximately a quarter of the rate of infection, shows a substantial improvement on the amount of cutting out which had taken place before that—cutting out which had, indeed, been suspended during the period of the riots and disturbances in the Gold Coast beginning about the latter part of 1947 and continuing through the first few months of last year. It was stated at that time that the political situation in the Gold Coast did not warrant the pursuit of this cutting-out campaign with greater vigour lest the disturbances became more severe.
  It was my contention then, and a claim which I wish to repeat now, that too much attention was paid to the agitation against cutting out, which, as we all recognised, was developed entirely for political motives, and that the suspension of cutting out because rioting had taken place was in fact a surrender of government. My claim that that is an explanation of what happened is justified by the fact that since then (and I will come in a moment to one of the outcomes of the rioting, namely, the Watson Commission), since the cutting out campaign has been pursued more energetically, nearly as many trees have been cut out in four months as had been cut out in the previous two years. In other words, when the energies which ought to have been displayed two years ago were at last displayed, the effects were what might have been anticipated—a satisfactory progress in the right direction, although that progress still amounts to only about 25 per cent. of the rate of progress which one would have liked to see. In other words, in spite of the improvement that has taken place, we are, vis-à-vis the cocoa industry, attempting to swim hard

  509
  upstream and being washed steadily down. The present rate of progress—namely, the cutting out of 1,000,000 trees as against 4,000,000 infected—represents a growth of infection, not at the rate of 10,000,000 which was then anticipated, but still at the rate of something of the order of 8,000,000 trees a year. Improvement though this is, the position is still far from creditable.
  I think it can be shown that throughout the years to which I am referring, the policy of the Government in the Gold Coast has paid all too much attention to a relatively small number of agitators, and that the gloomy forecasts of the consequences which would follow an energetically developed cutting-out campaign are not borne out by facts. I believe it is the case—the noble Viscount who is going to reply will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that the opposition to cutting out in recent months has been much less than had been anticipated, and it is due to that fact that the improvement has taken place. If that is so it shows that the fears of opposition were perhaps rather exaggerated.
  When the riots took place, we were presented with a very interesting phenomenon. If will not go now into the findings of the Watson Committee, which are known to your Lordships and to which reference has already been made in this House, but I must draw attention to the fact (and I think it is an undeniable fact) that the Watson Commission which was sent out to inquire was so sent out, not at the instance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or of His Majesty's Government in this country, but at the request of the Governor. That emerges both from the letter of committal, as I think it is called, to the Governor by the Watson Commission of their Report, and also in the covering letter to the Commission by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, one sentence of which reads:
  "The decision of His Excellency the Governor of the Gold Coast to appoint a Corn-mission to inquire into the disturbances"—
  and so on. In other words, we have the rather curious case of a Governor or a Government who ask for a Commission to be sent out to inquire into their own actions. There was a mess; there was trouble for which that Government were responsible, and that Government asked
  510
  for their actions to be inquired into. That seems to me to be curious.
  The result of that inquiry was even more curious. The terms of reference of the Commission were drawn—perhaps rightly or perhaps wrongly; I do not know—very widely. The terms of reference were:
  "To inquire into and report on recent disturbances in the Gold Coast and their underlying causes, and to make recommendations on any matter arising from their inquiry."
  The inquiry was into disturbances—or was supposed to have been into disturbances. The Report of the Watson Commission, as your Lordships know, is a peculiar document. It does, of course, deal with the inquiry into the disturbances on the Gold Coast, and with its findings in that regard I think none of your Lordships will be in disagreement. The condemnation of the part played by the agitators is particular and severe, and rightly so. But that occupies only a comparatively small part of the Report as a whole.
  The rest of the Report, no doubt somewhat to the surprise of those noble Lords who have read it, deals with matters which are as remote as it is conceivably possible to have them from the terms of reference of the inquiry. And the effect is very unsatisfactory. The comment published on the Watson Report—it is Colonial Paper 232—went so far as to suggest, by implication, that the Colonial Office were not at all in agreement with a great many of the recommendations contained in the Report. But instead of making what may be termed a repudiation of that pm of the Report which went beyond the terms of reference, His Majesty's Government decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into or to consider the recommendations of the Watson Commission.
  The appointment of that Committee, I submit, has had very important and disturbing political consequences on the Gold Coast. The Committee, who were appointed in the latter part of last year, received a congratulatory message on the beginning of their work from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was couched in such terns as to suggest to the Committee—consisting almost entirely of Africans—that they were being appointed to consider constitutional changes of far-reaching dimensions, on the lines, presumably—or perhaps not—

  511
  of the recommendations of the Watson Report. This message, and the reply, which are probably known to many of your Lordships, can have done nothing else but to emphasise and fortify the belief in the Gold Coast that the consequence of the Watson Commission would be a thorough-going revision of a Constitution which had been brought in only as lately as, I think, 1945 in the direction of self-government, and undoubtedly—in the minds of some of the agitating groups in the Gold Coast—of a separation from the Commonwealth. I am afraid that messages of that sort have tended to confirm this view. That is in line with the general trend of policy pursued by the Government in the Gold Coast, a tendency to pander to agitators, to allow them to have their way.
  It is my firm belief that though there is a large element of poisonous and extremely mischievous agitation in the Gold Coast, by no means all the educated opinion of Africans in the Gold Coast follows the view of those agitators. Indeed, from all the correspondence which I have received, and which I believe a number of other members of your Lordships' House have also received, that is far from being the case. There is a large and growing group of educated Africans on the Gold Coast who regard not only the activities of these agitators but also the concessions made to them, the surrenders made to them and the policy which is being pursued, as a matter of as great anxiety to them as to us. And they, being the people on the spot, are the first to feel that they are being let down by this weak policy of a Government who are not governing, or not governing hard.
  That has seen its final outcome, as I claim, in the publication recently, in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, of the Immigration Ordinance which was recently the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House. I wish to turn now to that matter but I shall not delay your Lordships long. In referring to it, I will not repeat the various arguments and contentions which were made in the course of that debate, but one or two facts have since that time been brought to my notice—and perhaps also to the notice of many of your Lordships who are here to-night—which have a bearing on what was then
  512
  said. If I may I will attempt to summarise in a few words something of what was said.
  In the answer which was made on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, two things were obvious. The first was that it was not clear to him—as it certainly was not clear to your Lordships' House—who was responsible for this extraordinary document. If I have been able to understand what the noble Earl said (I did not understand it very well at the time, and I cannot say that I am sure that I am entirely seized of it now, in spite of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT) it does appear that the comment I made at the end of this debate remains true—namely, that this Ordinance was in the nature of a pantomime horse, the front part of which was the work of the Colonial Office and the hind part of which was the work of the local Government in the Gold Coast. If we have a particular quarrel, it is more, I regret to say, with the front part of the horse than with the hind part.
  We are all agreed that immigration restriction in one form or another, is necessary in respect of the Colonial territories in Africa. That has never been in question. It was not in question then, and it is not in question now. What was in question was the preamble to that Immigration Ordinance, the form in which that document took shape and how it was published, and certain aspects which I think are not common to Immigration Ordinances relating either to African or other British Colonies. If I may I will summarise one or two of those points. I have looked up again the summary of the regulations in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, and I have now in my possession what I believe to be the unsummarised document from which that summary was prepared and printed. In so far as the two documents do not tally (they cannot tally entirely, of course, because one is a summary of the other) the longer document is worse than the shorter.
  May I take a case in point? One of the subjects which was discussed in the debate to which I have referred was the discrimination against the wives of Europeans in the Gold Coast who were not officials, as compared with the wives

  513
  of officials. The text to which I then referred, and which was discussed, read:
  "Wives accompanying or joining their husbands will normally be treated similarly to their husbands but a condition of entry that they do not undertake any employment without the permission of the Government may be imposed."
  If the document which I have in my possession, of which that was a summary, is an authentic document, the full wording of that particular provision is rather worse. It reads:
  "The wives of all Government Officers and Services personnel will be issued with Form A."
  Form A is the form prescribed in these regulations which allows a person to live in the Gold Coast for the stated number of years which the document contains. The direction goes on to say:
  "The wives of other persons unless there are special circumstances for prohibiting entry will be issued with the same form as their husbands"—
  not necessarily Form A.
  That is a very clear discrimination. It is idle to plead that no discrimination was intended when that was the original document. I am still entirely at a loss, as I think your Lordships are, to understand why a summary was published and not the original document, which is not so much longer that the Gold Coast Gazette—Extraordinary or otherwise—could not have contained the full text. If a notice is to be published which governs the lives of the whole European population in the Gold Coast, it seems only reasonable, if not courteous, that those regulations should be published and made known. We have still to learn what was the object of publishing this in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary. It was headed "Directive," a word which I then said, and repeat, is not known as a legislative document in this country. It is unsigned. It bears no reference to the Ordinance or law upon which it is based. It is a sloppy, slipshod piece of legislation, and the more one looks at it, the worse it becomes.
  I am aware that since the date of the debate various discussions have taken place with interested parties to seek to persuade them, I think, that the restrictions on immigration into the Gold Coast laid down in this extraordinary document will not be either so onerous or so difficult as might have appeared. I imagine
  514
  that it was hoped by the Colonial Office that those discussions would have arrived at a conclusion which would have enabled the noble Viscount who is to reply to say, "My dear fellow, there is nothing in this. They are all happy about it. No harm has been dons. Everybody is perfectly happy. What are you worrying about?" I believe the Government will not be able to say that, because however much it may be true that some have been persuaded, the British commercial community in the Gold Coast are better British citizens and patriots than they are commercial people. They have been willing to forgo any advantages they individually might have had by coming to an agreement, rather than agree to what we on this side of the House regard as an iniquitous order.
  However, a great de al has happened since then. My attention has been drawn to the fact that these Immigration Ordinances, whether in the Gold Coast or any other Colony, are curious provisions. I do not know whether or not the definition of British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies has a bearing on this subject, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies on June 16 last, in reply to a question on the immigration into this country of 400 unemployed West Indians, stated:
  "We recognise the need for some vetting, but obviously we cannot interfere with the movement of British subjects."
  That is precisely what the Immigration Ordinance of the Gold Coast seeks to do, and the matter is aggravated by the fact that whereas in the past all loyal subjects of His Majesty is the Commonwealth were British subjects, they have now been divided into two classes—British subjects and British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Nevertheless, it is true that in this Ordinance British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies are no longer allowed freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the Colonies and are subject to the same treatment as any others. That is the consequence of the new British Nationality Act and the new policy which is to govern the Colonies.
  The contention made that this Ordinance was not unique is not borne out by comparison with the Immigration Ordinances of other Colonies. I will not weary your Lordships at this hour with

  515
  some of the comparisons I have had the good fortune to be able to make, but two more modern Ordinances do not bear so heavily or so severely and they give rights of appeal which appear to be denied to people going to the Gold Coast. I have examined the Nigerian immigration law, the immigration restrictions of Jamaica (to which the noble Earl referred when he was good enough to say that there also aliens and British subjects were treated in the same way, which, however, I do not find in the law itself) and generally the Immigration Ordinances dated 1947. There is no shadow of doubt that this Gold Coast paper, directive, document—whatever it is—is far more severe, and is intended to be far more severe, than any which has hitherto been published.
  I submit that if we are to recognise that restriction on immigration into British Colonies is necessary, a distinction can, should and must be made between the immigration of British subjects and of those who are described as British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, apart from the distinction between them and aliens. Furthermore, I submit that to achieve some form of uniformity, discussions on the subject must be held here in London, and not locally by each individual Colony which would deal with the matter on its own local merits. For instance, we cannot submit to having a totally different form of Immigration Ordinance in the Gold Coast from that which might be in force in Nigeria. In order to achieve uniformity, a conference on the subject must be held here in London.
  Before I come to my last point, I must say that I trust that this sloppy and slipshod form of legislation—if it is legislation—in the Gold Coast will not be pursued any longer. This is not the only example that has come out of the Gold Coast. I think I am right in saying that in 1948 an Ordinance dealing with prices and price control was found to be so unworkable that it had to be withdrawn within a few days of its issuance, and that a little earlier, in 1947, an Ordinance was issued which met with exactly the same fate. I must add that I would not like anyone on the Gold Coast or anywhere in West Africa to think that this criticism of the Immigration Ordinance is prompted by any desire on the part of
  516
  anybody in this country, either to remove the livelihood from Africans, or to remove their resources, prosperity, and so on. It does not require a great deal of imagination to see that no British concern operating in the Gold Coast, whether in the commercial, agricultural or mining fields, is going to send out one more employee from this country than they are compelled to. It is an extremely expensive matter to send people out to the Gold Coast with their families, bringing them home on leave, and finally, at the end of their service, retiring them on a pension. It is just folly to say that people overstaff themselves with European employees out there for fun, or to try and find jobs for people. The climate of the Gold Coast is not one to which people go as a matter of choice, or for their health.
  There appears to be a complete misconception about this. Emigration to me has always presumed some element of settling, living and making your life there. I know of no case of Europeans going out to the West Coast of Africa to settle, to make their homes there and bring up families. They go out there for the years of their work, and then they come back. They are temporary visitors, by the very nature of their occupations, and by the very nature of the development of the Coast. Therefore, to call them immigrants, as if they were to be there for the rest of their lives, to have their families there and increase and multiply at the expense of the land of the Africans, is so silly that it does not bear further examination; and it should never have been at the back of anybody's mind. We on this side of the House, just as much as noble Lords on the other side, wish to see the Africans develop Africa; but we know that in many of the technical aspects and technical employments which are filled by Europeans to-day, they are not in a position to do so. Those occupations necessarily have to be filled if the Colony is to carry on. There must be people to go there and fill them. To obstruct them by an Immigration Ordinance and restrictions of this sort is as stupid as it is wrong.
  In the last few days—this is one of the reasons why I was unable to postpone this debate—I have had my attention drawn to what is possibly the most remarkable development of the whole of this remarkable story. I have learned—

  517
  I am sure the noble Viscount who is to reply is aware of this—that the agitation against this Immigration Ordinance is not a monopoly of your Lordships' House, or of people in this country. One of the better-known political figures in the Gold Coast tabled a Motion in the Legislative Council, at a meeting which took place only yesterday, calling attention to this Ordinance, and opposing it. Whatever views your Lordships may have on the politics and ideals of Dr. Danquah, I do not think they can be said to be particularly friendly to some of the traditions that we stand for here. It is remarkable that, not only in your Lordships' House but on the Coast itself, there has arisen against this iniquitous document an agitation which has finally taken the form of a Motion in the Legislative Council. I feel sure the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be able to tell us something more about that Motion at the close of this debate.
  I am the more satisfied that I was right to raise this subject a short time ago by the knowledge that my protest has the support of what may be called even the extreme wing of opinion on the Gold Coast. They feel, as we do here, that this Ordinance is a bad document, a sloppy document, and a document that ought never to have been published. I desire—and I ask your Lordships to agree with me—to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider the withdrawal of this document, and discussion in the appropriate quarters before another is published in its place. I beg to move for Papers.
  5.45 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure we all agree with the able speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. My excuse for occupying your Lordships' time for a moment or two is that in the early days of my life (days too far back for my present peace of mind) I was a mining engineer, and I was very familiar with the difficulties in regard to the operations on the Gold Coast, which have now brought about such prosperity. As the noble Lord has said, we all know that this country was at one time looked upon as the white man's grave—as, indeed, it was. It was only through the energy and enterprise of those who, on the results of their primitive investigations in those days, determined to cont
  518
  inue, that the country has become, to the great benefit of the Africans, so important in regard to gold-bearing and manganese.
  To show the sort of situation that exists, I would like to tell your Lordships of a meeting I had with two friends of mine, prominent men in that part of the world, one of whom went out there a little while ago. He was taking his breakfast in the ship, and an official came in to the saloon and said: "What is your name?" My friend then gave his name. The official then said: "Are you here to get a job?" My friend said: "Who are you?" The official said: "You cannot go ashore until you have done this, that and the other." My friend happened to have hit, solicitor in the saloon at the time, and he turned to him and said: "Do you think there is a telephone on board to connect me to the shore?" His solicitor said: "Yes. I think we can manage that." My friend then said: "Tell the Governor I cannot lunch with him to-day." That is the sort of ridiculous atmosphere there is at the moment. Only two days ago I saw probably one of the greatest men from that part of the world, who is well-known to everybody—I will not mention his name—and has been there for thirty-five years. The same sort of thing happened to him. It is ridiculous that men of such prominence, who have taken such a great part in developing the country, should be subjected to these indignities.
  In the beginning, of course, a great deal of money, and many lives, were lost in prospecting this very difficult area. I am informed—and I am certain it is true—that the welfare of the miners in that part of the world is well looked after by the companies operating there. In fact, one of my friends said to me: "I'll bet you that the housing of the miners on the estates about which I know is a great deal better than the housing of the miners in England." They have hospitals; their welfare and their recreation is looked after. That is all done by the companies operating on the Gold Coast. There has always been a policy on the part of these people not to allow the immigration of undesirable white men who were going out there merely to look for a job. They have always supported the idea of restricting the immigration of

  519
  white people into the Gold Coast to the highest possible standard of Europeans.
  Only two days ago I was told that the greater part of the difficult operations on this particular property to which I am referring is now done by Africans. That is because the training of these organisations is making it possible for them to do really skilled work. The Gold Coast Government gain enormously by the operation of these companies. I do not know whether I am exaggerating when I say that tens of millions have been sunk in this country, with the resulting enormous royalties and taxation—even export taxes—which have gone into the pockets of the local Administration. Therefore this directive, to which the noble Lord has referred, is quite impractical if the success of these enterprises is to continue. I trust that the Government will do what the noble Lord requested, and that this directive (or whatever we should call it) will be withdrawn for the time being, and something far more comprehensive and reasonable introduced. Here is a country which is still in its infancy in regard to development, and there is no doubt whatever that many particular enterprises, of great value to the country and to Africans, can be dealt with in the near future. If it is left entirely to the local Africans, I submit that they will not be in a position to take over their country and to govern it.
  Perhaps noble Lords opposite will not like that, but we have seen instances in Burma where the local people have been allowed to govern themselves when they were not ready for such a thing; and we have seen the same thing in Malaya. For goodness sake do not let us have this sort of thing happening on the Gold Coast. As the noble Lord has so ably told us, it is dreadful to think that many of the intelligent and well-educated Africans are against this sort of directive which has been put before your Lordships. Within the last few years I myself have seen, outside the areas which are being administered and worked by the companies, worse slums than any that I have seen anywhere in the world. I earnestly hope that for the sake of the future of this country the Government will take this matter up very seriously. Unless this is done, I cannot for the life of me see how any sensible person will put a penny piece into that country in
  520
  the future. I most heartily support my noble friend in his Motion.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Lord's Motion is phrased in the terms: "To call attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation." I rise to deal with one aspect only: the most unsatisfactory aspect of the economic situation. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the economic prosperity of West Africa depends almost entirely upon two industries—the cocoa industry and the gold industry. Let me hasten to say that I have no personal interest in this gold industry at all, but it is that industry with which I wish to deal for a very few moments.
  The West African gold industry makes a vital contribution to this country. Gold production is the greatest source of gold which is at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, and, after all, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer day by day that the great need for this country is to bridge the dollar gap. That being so, one would imagine that the economic policy in the Gold Coast would be one to encourage the gold industry and not to depress it. The gold industry in West Africa employs some 38,000 Africans, it contributes about £1,250,000 a year to Gold Coast revenue and it pays £1,750,000 in wages. I give these figures to show the magnitude of the enterprise. Yet the economic policy followed by the Gold Coast Government has not aided this industry but has handicapped it. In 1941, some 882,000 fine ounces of gold were produced—that was a peak year. The noble Viscount says, "What is it to do with this Motion?"
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If the noble Viscount was in his seat when I started my remarks, he will know that I said that the noble Lord's Motion calls attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation in West Africa. The Leader of the House will acknowledge that gold production is the second greatest industry in West Africa, and that is the reason why I am endeavouring quite briefly to deal with it. I hope that answers the noble Viscount's question. I repeat

  521
  that, in 1941, the peak of gold production was 882,000 fine ounces. My predecessor in West Africa, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had to reduce that owing to the world oil shortage. By 1947, production had worked up to 550,000 ounces, and unfortunately it is unlikely to rise much beyond that figure. Yet there are tens of thousands of tons of ore to be milled there, which would be a vital help to us at the present time.
  I think we are entitled to consider for a moment why that situation has come about, and why there is not likely to be any rise in gold production. Labour shortages, reduced efficiency of labour and taxation are the main causes. Up to recently there was an unfair tax levied on all gold, irrespective of the cost of production, and therefore the lower-grade mines could not pay. Let me say here that there were originally 150 mines in the Gold Coast. There are some twelve equipped for big production, but to-day only six are able to work economically. What I am asking for is some revision of the principles of taxation which the Gold Coast Government are following. In October, owing to pressure of economic cost, the Gold Coast Government altered the system of taxation and made certain amendments to help the lower-grade mines. But they have done this only at the cost of penalising the higher-grade mines, and the relief they have given is not sufficient to enable the lower-grade mines to produce.
  We may say in this House that we are disinterested in gold mines, but we are not. Our purpose is to increase the gold production in the British Commonwealth, and I think it is to be greatly regretted that the present system of taxation is so penal that it is not possible to increase the Gold Coast gold production. The duty of those responsible must be to cut down costs. There is no solution in lower wages at all. Wages have risen somewhere round 40 per cent. since 1939. I think we are all glad that wages have risen, provided that the cost of those wages can be carried economically by the industry. But the best solution, of course, would be a rise in the price of gold. If that cannot be—and, after all, that is a big international question—then I submit that there should be some large revision in the principle of taxation. At the present time the Gold Coast Government tax
  522
  both the process of production and the product itself. Every article that comes in to be used in the mines is heavily taxed. That is unsound. I believe that the tax on the process should be wiped out and taxation confined to the final product only, and thus an increase in production be allowed.
  I have dealt very briefly, because I do not want to keep your Lordships long, with this vital issue. I believe that the cause of this penal taxation is basically something to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred in his speech—the resistant attitude of the Administration to commercial interests and mineral development. I can remember certain very responsible persons in the Gold Coast—persons whom I held in great esteem—saying to me, "It would be better for the Gold Coast if these minerals had never been discovered." But, my Lords, you cannot turn the wheels of time backward. The minerals have been discovered, and are required, and could be produced in greater quantities if there were as a start a change in the psychological attitude and then positive action. Ii the taxation principles are altered, we can reap the benefit for the Gold Coast and ourselves of the wealth which is there, and help to bridge the dollar gap.
  6.2 p.m.
  LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I ask your indulgence while I refer to a personal difficulty which I have in dealing with this and similar Motions, although they refer to subjects of which I have made in late years a good deal of study. The fact is that during the last two years I have been engaged on behalf of the Colonial Office in an inquiry regarding the methods of native administration and local government in Africa, which has involved very extensive journeys and a great deal of work here. The Colonial Office has given me all the facilities for this study and the opportunity of coming into contact with the district officers of, I think, the greater number of the districts in the ten Colonies with which I dealt. I could not have done that work without their assistance and their countenance, and your Lordships will well understand if, in the circumstances, until that task is completed, have some hesitation in availing myself of the same freedom of criticism as that which some of your Lordships enjoy. Therefore, if to-day I address myself to

  523
  some more general considerations, which may possibly help in dealing with this case, I hope I shall have your Lordships' sympathy.
  Let me say, in the first place, that anxiety in regard to administration and affairs generally in the Gold Coast is no new subject with those who have studied Colonial matters. It is, indeed, of very many years' standing. I think I am breaking no confidence by saying that it has certainly been a subject of anxiety in the Colonial Office. The reason, I think, is that the Gold Coast has occupied a somewhat unusual position. If you look into its past history you will find that there was in the earlier days a tendency to regard our relations with the native authorities of the Gold Coast as relations with chiefs having treaty rights. The consequence was that the relations became more of a political character than administrative, and administration undoubtedly suffered. It is a long story and I will not go into it now, but it was not until seven or eight years ago that what I may describe as the claims of administration pure and simple were reasserted by the introduction in the Gold Coast of the system which we describe elsewhere as "indirect rule"; and the application of that system is still being worked out.
  Meanwhile, there has grown up in the Gold Coast another factor of importance. There has arisen there what is rare in most of the Colonies of Africa—something corresponding to what we should call here a middle class. Ordinarily, in most of the territories of Africa we have to deal with the chiefs and their entourage and the like on the one hand, and with the peasant class below. There is very little—in some parts of Africa, anyway—of a trading class or of what might be called the advanced commoner; but in the Gold Coast, owing mainly to the growth of the cocoa trade, there has grown up a large middle class, wealthy, often well educated, and with a keen interest in political advancement. That class has become highly important in the Gold Coast. On the one hand, it has, I think, a strong attachment to the position of the chiefs, whom it values as an African institution, values also on religious and on traditional grounds. On the other hand, it is equally desirous of advancement in that form of political
  524
  self-government which will give a place to men of education and progressive ideas. The point I wish to make at this stage is this: that whatever changes you may make there in the constitutional system—whether, as some critics say, the chief has had his day and must be replaced by the employment of another agency—yet the chief will remain on the Gold Coast as a person of influence, carrying the loyalty of a great number of people; and he will still be the authority to whom many will look for leadership and for guidance.
  Now, if I may turn to some of the points that have been made in the course of this discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and others, I should like to take first the question of cocoa. I speak with some reserve on this question, as I said before; but it is a fact that sufficient attention was not paid at an early date to the growth of swollen shoot disease. It was noticeable, as I well remember, as far back as 1936 and 1937. Then the Colonial Office took an interest in the matter and sent out one of their experts to inquire into the disease and to find out its cause. Again, I think there was undue delay in announcing the compensation that the Government were prepared to pay for the destruction of the affected trees and for replanting new ones.
  Of course, in saying that, one must remember that the task of those who are now endeavouring, quite rightly, to press on with the campaign of destruction has not been rendered easier by the fact that owing to climatic or other causes we have had this year the second biggest crop of cocoa that the Gold Coast has ever known. I will not attempt to draw any lessons from that. I will only point out that it does add to the difficulties of the administration there that, at the very time when people are having the largest crop almost within their memory and at the highest prices, it should have to be pressing them for the destruction of the trees. Believe me, it is not entirely an agitation provoked for political motives, because I well remember seeing people in Ashanti and elsewhere who pleaded that their trees should not be destroyed so long as they could produce fruit of any kind, even in a reduced quantity. There was a very natural movement on the part of the peasant himself to do everything possible

  525
  to save his trees, and that long before it became a matter of political agitation.
  Secondly, as to the immigration directive, I am speaking as one who has spent many years in administration, and I can only say this: that it represents to me a bad secretarial slip-up, and where the slip-up occurred I am not prepared to say. I will use no harsher words about it; indeed, for a Government officer to confess to a secretarial slip-up is sufficient condemnation. I should be very glad to see it entirely re-written because it had certain objects which have to be achieved; certain restrictions have to be placed on immigration; but I think it could all be done in another way and thereby avoid many of the objections which have been brought against it.
  There has, however, been a thought occurring to me in the course of this discussion which perhaps flows mainly from the contacts I have made with officers of the Administration and from the friendship that I have enjoyed from them. They have very great difficulties. They have difficulties of a somewhat doubtful administrative past. They have difficulties arising from the necessity of dealing with the swollen shoot disease. They have difficulties that arise from the economic upheaval of the Gold Coast, which has greatly multiplied the monies available to the people and at the same time has reduced the amount, until lately, at all events, of consumer goods upon which those monies could be spent. One of the greatest causes of the recent troubles in the Gold Coast, and a cause which certainly added support to political movements, is this economic upheaval. I remember well only eight or nine years ago when the price of cocoa per head load was 7s. 6d., and consumer goods were in plenty. To-day, when consumer goods are scarce, at all events in textiles, the price of cocoa per head load is 65s., and, as I said before, there is an unexampled crop. That has caused an economic crisis there which affects everyone, and I think that its results are seen in a great deal of the political movements that we have witnessed lately.
  Finally, these men have the difficulties of those who for most of their lives have been concerned in administration, and often administration in contact with primitive people. To-day they have to face political movements of which they
  526
  have no experience and in which they are not versed. I speak with some feeling upon that, for we went through that stage in India. It is one that one has to surmount; but at this moment, for the reasons I have given, their difficulties are great. I should be unwilling to think, as I know your Lordships would be unwilling to think, that anything said here should cast on to the Administration as a whole an opprobrium which they are bound to feel, and a reproach which must react upon their capacity to deal with the people in their charge.
  I should like to mat e one other point in regard to what has been said in relation, first of all, to the Watson Commission, and secondly to the Committee that has lately been appointed. With regard to the Watson Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made the point that it was strange that the Governor should ask the Colonial Office for a Commission to examine into the actions of his own Government. I happened to see the Governor during the course of the troubles in Accra, and I know that it was in his mind that he should ask for an inquiry of this kind, for the simple reason that the action of his police and other officers was being attacked, and he thought it fair to his own Administration that it should be made the subject of an inquiry from outside. In any case, it had to be the Governor who announced the appointment of the Commission, for this reason: that it was only from him as Governor, acting in his executive capacity, that the necessary authority to call witnesses and the like could be given. Therefore, whatever the background of that may have been, it had to be announced as the Governor's Commission.
  As regards the Report of the Watson Commission, I may say that I have seen many Commissions of inquiry into disturbances, both in India and in some of the Colonies. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to explain why any body of men, with so short a knowledge of the country and spending so short a time in it, should have gore so far as they did in making recommendations regarding constitutional and other changes. I think it was almost without example in that direction. Again, as before, I am speaking with some restraint. I would add that I think it is a lesson to us that we should in future be more careful in

  527
  laying down the terms of reference, or at all events appoint a personnel with a better regulated sense of their responsibilities. In regard to the Committee which is now sitting, I will not go into questions that have been raised elsewhere as to its all-African composition, and the like. If the noble Viscount who is to reply cares to deal with that question, no doubt he will do so, but, from all the information that I can obtain, it seems to me that the Committee has started well, in the sense that through its chairman it has made it perfectly clear that it does not consider itself appointed merely in order to draw up a Constitution of self-government which will immediately and automatically be implemented. The Committee has made that perfectly clear.
  It is well that it should have done so, and I hope that anything which is said from the Government here will again emphasise that point, because there are fantastic stories going about, as we all know, in the Gold Coast—stories that self-government is to be announced (I do not want to be frivolous) on April 1, and stories that there will be a universal strike which will have to be repressed by military measures if on April 1 a proclamation of self-government is not made. One knows by experience that some of our political friends in the Gold Coast are rather naive about that kind of thing. I well remember that while the Watson Commission was sitting and was about to report, some of them already had the Cabinet named which was to take over the government as soon as the Watson Commission reported; they had the portfolios distributed, and they were apparently, in their own minds, quite resolved that that was about to happen. Political naïveté can really go no further. I hope, therefore, that it will be made perfectly clear by the Government that the recommendations of the Committee which is now sitting have been directed to only one particular purpose—that of making an all-round inquiry into the foundations available for political advance—and that there is no suggestion whatever that they are intended merely to draw up the terms of the announcement of self-government, or that those terms will be automatically implemented.
  If your Lordships will bear with me, I have one concluding point. I should
  528
  like to point out the important factors that go to make up the constitution of society in the Gold Coast, for I think that they have to be borne in mind in dealing with questions of this kind. The territory consists really of three parts. There is the Northern Territory, with about 1,250,000 inhabitants, who are for the most part primitive, who came under administration for the first time in 1907 or 1908 and who, as yet, have a purely subsistence existence. They have no exports and are indeed somewhat isolated from the rest of the country. Therefore, for the moment, at all events, they are outside the range of political considerations but very much within the range of the necessity for good administration. There is secondly the Ashanti area, where, as your Lordships know, not so many years ago we reconstituted the Ashanti Confederation with the Ashantahene and its divisional chiefs. Here then is the remains of a military organisation to which the people still owe a feeling of great allegiance. The Ashantahene and divisional chiefs are people of great influence but of a very conservative turn of mind, who are, as yet, little interested in the political movement that has originated for the most part in the Gold Coast itself.
  Thirdly, in the Gold Coast Colony there are a large number of people who, for the reasons I have already given, are still greatly attached to what are called locally the stools—namely, their native chiefs. There are also the advanced political elements, which are, however, as Lord Rennell has said, by no means all of one way of thinking. But I think you may say that in the Gold Coast Colony itself, where the chief centre of political movement lies, it remains the fact not only that there are large numbers of people who are still attached to the ancient régime, but large numbers of people whose chief interest at the moment is not in political advance so much as in the future of the cocoa crop and the situation created by the present inflation of prices.
  My Lords, they are factors that I should like to commend to you and, if I may, to His Majesty's Government for consideration in any plans that they have for the Gold Coast in the future. I feel, looking at the Gold Coast as a whole and as I have seen it, that at the moment the

  529
  primary requirement there is not merely political advancement (though I do not put that on one side) but a firm-based, consistent and progressive system of administrative and executive government.
  6.25 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I want in a very few minutes to put one question to you—namely: Are we doing half enough to-day to encourage the young and intelligent African to think of himself as a citizen of the British Commonwealth rather than as an African? I am afraid our policy is one rather of disintegration and of self-government run riot. The French do things differently. They hold out the conception of becoming a citizen of France, with all that that means to the intelligent and perhaps ambitious native. The word "France" is easy to grasp, just as the word "Rome" was easy to grasp in the days of that great Empire which was so successful in colonial administration in Africa. Some of us may remember that Septimus Severus, a North African, even became Emperor. Many young and ambitious Africans to-day dream not of service to the Empire but of power in independent self-governing States, some of which can never materialise. We have been too slow in offering the highest opportunities within the Imperial service to Colonials of all races. What a pity it is that the word "England" in its widest sense is now unfashionable! Let us, however, strive to make the term "citizen of the British Commonwealth" one which will inspire men of every race and creed.
  6.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am going to direct myself entirely to one point in this discussion. The debate is a natural and logical consequence of the debate we had a month ago, when such grave anxiety was evident not only in this House but in the country generally when that curious directive was published. I would assure my noble friend, Lord Haney, that not only constitutionally but actually and on merit, any criticism which will be or was advanced by me and, I think, by others, is criticism of the Secretary of State and not criticism of any official. The criticism must always be of the Minister. The Minister must take responsibility for his officials. He gets the credit if they do well and he must take the rough with the smooth. He
  530
  can give his officials a rough time when they let him down, but he will be less let down if he sees to it that he keeps proper supervision and proper control. Of course, not only in Parliamentary theory and practice but in reality the responsibility rests largely with the Secretary of State. Therefore, I ask what has happened about that directive.
  Not only is that directive a very bad piece of drafting, which no secretariat and certainly no Secretary of State should have allowed to go out, but it is not capable of being drafted rightly, because it is wrong in essence. It is not the verbal criticism that matters; it is that it goes to a fundamental principle of policy—namely, European-African co-operation. Where the policy is as big as that, there can be no possible doubt that the Secretary of State is the responsible person. The development has taken place in the Gold Coast. Moreover, under the Constitution of the Gold Coast the reserve power remains in the Secretary of State, and the Governor in Council exercises those powers which the Secretary of State has devolved upon him; but, always, in the greatest questions of policy, responsibility must be with the Secretary of State, and from the Secretary of State to Parliament. I therefore ask that to-day it shall be made clear that responsibility on this great question of policy is accepted by the Secretary of State and is not vested in a local immigration officer. The decision is of vital importance to West African prosperity and to the future co-operation of Europeans and Americans—whose co-operation, I know, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House equally wants. I am sure that people will not go in if the fundamental policy decisions are not clear, if such decisions are left to some junior official, and if they, themselves, have not fair freedom of action.
  So that I may appeal to the Government, may I take a simple parallel case? I take the Government's own announced policy and the Government's often repeated plea concerning the nationalised industries in this country. The Government have asserted over and over again, and have made what is not an unreasonable appeal to us, that we should give the managements a free hand. The Government, they point out, cannot be responsible for the details. I ask this

  531
  question: What would be said if some official in some Government Department were to dictate to the Coal Board or to the Railway Board or to any of the other governing bodies of nationalised undertakings how many men they were to employ at a particular time in a particular development?
  May I also put this point—and the analogy is even closer. A groundnuts scheme is now being conducted in Tanganyika. I ask the Government, does their local immigration officer in Tanganyika have the duty or the right to decide how many Europeans the Food Corporation—or whichever of the corporations is concerned—is to send in to manage the groundnuts scheme? There are other schemes, possibly not so great, but just as well-managed, which have been set on foot, and which we want to see set on foot. The same freedom which is accorded to the corporation operating in Tanganyika must be accorded to those other ventures in which people are asked to take risks, and in which no monopoly is sought. To do other than concede that would be to do a great disservice to Africans and to world recovery.
  I am sorry to hear of the illness of the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I am glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is to reply to this debate, because he speaks with great authority and, if I may say so, also with great understanding. I ask him this question because it is fundamental to policy. Is the Government's policy the policy of Aggrey, the greatest of African pioneers and teachers? The noble Viscount knows of Aggrey, the founder of Achimota, and of his policy and watchword—"The harmony of the black and white keys."
  There are some foolish extremists who preach class warfare at home. I am sure that the last thing the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would seek to do would be stimulate racial antipathy in the African Colonies. But it may well be—indeed it will be—that that will result unless the policy is made clear. Failure to declare the policy and the aim will be exploited not by the majority but by the evil-wishers, of whom there are not a few, and who are not inactive. I ask the noble Viscount to accept, and I
  532
  am sure he will agree, that the Government have a duty to preach and to practise this true gospel of co-operation. Directives, regulations and administrative actions are only the means of giving effect to policy, and it is essential that that policy should be plainly stated—the policy of harmony and partnership.
  May I give to the House one example? Years ago I had to decide how the diamond workings in Sierra Leone were to be developed. I said: "I must find the best pioneers and the best company I can to do this job." I found the Selection Trust, and I went into partnership with them. What was the result? Admirable employment and model employers. Ideal villages were set up, and great prosperity was created. In no more than a single year £350,000 of revenue accrued to the Government of that comparatively small Colony of Sierra Leone, to be used to promote native welfare and native development. Surely that is the right policy and the common interest. I am confident that the noble Viscount will agree with that, and will declare his agreement. The Leader of the House will render a great service to Africans and to Europeans alike if he will make plain that the policy of the Government is that policy of partnership and that the responsibility rests where it must rest—with the Secretary of State.
  6.37 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I will reply as well as I can to the very important question of high policy which has been stated so clearly by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. When he speaks of these matters we recognise his unique experience. I say at once—though I will come to the substance of the matter later—that I do not think I have any quarrel with him as regards principles. But before I deal with what he has said, may I try to answer some of the points which have been raised in this debate in the order in which they were mentioned? That means that I shall be dealing with one or two relatively minor points first.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked me how the alteration of taxation has affected the gold-mining industry. He used the description "a penal form of taxation." I was not aware that I was going to be asked that question, and I say quite frankly that I know

  533
  exceedingly little about the subject. But I am given to understand that the present system of taxation is not something new; it is not something that has been brought in for the first time, even during the tenure of office of this Government. There has, however, been one alteration during the past year. I understand that the purpose of that alteration was to assist the lower-grade mines, and that it is in fact doing so. I will, of course, pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but all I can say now is that there is nothing specially new for which this Government can be held responsible in this particular connection. I confess, my Lords, that it was some comfort to me to receive that information.
  I should like to say here that I sincerely regret that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is unable to be present to-day. He knows a great deal more about this subject than I do, but I have done my best within the time available to acquaint myself with some of the governing facts. Now let me refer to the general charge brought by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with respect to the cocoa industry, and the endeavours being made to deal with the pest. I do not think the noble Lord was at all fair. It is easy to be wise after the event. My Lords, there is nothing more consistent in the world than the exceedingly conservative outlook of the agricultural producer, whether in the Gold Coast or Lincolnshire. He is not easy to move. The decision from the first to cut these trees was found to be the only possible one, and this decision has now been confirmed. But is it any wonder that the natives, whose living depended on the product of these trees, did not look kindly on that operation?
  I myself, as your Lordships know well, come of agricultural stock, and I well remember when the late Mr. Chaplin introduced the policy of slaughter for foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The British farmer did not take at all kindly to it. He did not like to have his cows killed. I well remember the long struggle that took place; and even now farmers object to this slaughter, although they receive fairly liberal compensation. But it is very human. So the people in West Africa did not like it—and that is very human, too. It is all very well for the noble Lord to think he is in the
  534
  middle of the eighteenth century, but he is not. He complained very much that we should have paid attention to agitators. I agree that we do not want to surrender to agitators upon the terms of government, but if an agitation is due partly to the resentment of people who see their source of living being cut down, it is very sensible to inquire into the causes of the agitation and, while the inquiry is going on, to hold your hand a bit. I cannot see anything foolish about that.
  In order to convince the people that this was the right thing to do, it was necessary not only to take the advice of the people interested in the industry, but to get outside experts to give their advice; and this was done. A very strong Committee of experts of international repute—I have the particulars here—were gathered to examine this problem. The advice they gave was that the only thing to do was to cut down the trees, advice which fortified that given earlier on the spot. There has been a great campaign of education and instruction, and of persuasion, and I am glad to say that we are now making much more rapid progress. But it is a difficult, large and exceedingly unpleasant undertaking, as anybody can realise. I do not think the noble Lord was fair in his rather glib condemnation of the people who have been responsible for the conduct of this affair.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, reminded us, not only have we to deal with the obstacle of the prejudice and dislike of the people against having their property taken away, but the fact that the yield of the trees has been exceedingly remunerative during the last year makes it all the more objectionable to them. I, for my part, do not wonder that it has been difficult; and, on the whole, the rapid increase in tree clearances during the last year, dismal though the job is, is very gratifying. We know that liberal compensation is being paid and we must hope that every effort will be made by all of us, by persuasion and otherwise, to see that this horrible disease is eliminated as soon as possible. I think that the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, are not warranted: they are certainly unduly severe.
  I come now to the Commission of Inquiry, which arose out of the disturbances in the Colony, which were described by

  535
  the noble Lord, Lord Hailey. I have looked at their terms of reference. The Commission were in the Colony a very short time, and they made a number of very generous and wide-spreading recommendations. That is fairly obvious from their Report. But the chief point now is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State obviously took a similar view of that Report, because he issued a White Paper upon it. I do not think that the noble Lord should castigate the Government too much because this Commission, doing their best to find out the causes of unrest and to recommend some remedies for it, took an exceptionally generous view of their remit and made some rather wide-spreading recommendations. I think my right honourable friend dealt with this in the proper way. He arranged for the appointment of a second Committee to consider, under restricted terms of reference, the recommendations of this first Commission, so far as they related to matters of local government and other questions. That body was deliberately made up of people who live in the Colony. It had nothing to do with any glorious notions of independence; its job was to see what could be done practically to develop self-government within the necessary limits. It was natural, therefore, that it should be composed of people who live in the Colony, and whose life interest and that of their children is there. That is what we have done elsewhere, and that is what was done here.
  Apparently a very wise Chairman was appointed—as I will show in a minute—and the Committee consisted of four representatives from the different regional councils and a number of individuals selected by the Governor for their personal qualifications. This Committee are now, within the restricted terms of reference, considering, and will advise upon, the Report of the earlier Watson Commission. I shall be glad if the noble Lord will take the trouble to read the speech of the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Justice Coussey, which is the subject of his somewhat generous censure. I have a copy of it here, and I propose to hand it to the noble Lord afterwards. I will read a small extract from that speech, which will perhaps bring some comfort to the noble Lord.
  536
  The Chairman said:
  "It should be unnecessary for me to state that this Committee does not meet"—
  that was how he began—
  "to form a Ministry composed entirely of Africans to assume, immediately, power and responsibility for the government of the country. That is not within the recommendation of the Watson Report, nor of the proposals of His Majesty's Government nor of our terms of reference. Although it is the cry of some, who have not considered fully its implications, that self-rule should be granted at once, it must be obvious to those who place foremost the true welfare of the masses, that a system must be created, flexible and progressive enough to permit the orderly evolution to responsible government within the shortest practicable time."
  That is a very wise and carefully-phrased (shall I say?) admonition to the Committee. Happily, I have myself been able to read the whole of that speech, and all I have to say of it is that I should be proud to think that I could make as good a speech. It is an excellent speech, very carefully phrased, and that Committee have been very wisely guided. I do not think the noble Lord need have many qualms about that.
  I now come to the document which has been described as a "directive," and by various other names. The history of that, if I may say so, is not quite in accordance with the impression that has been created by some. Originally there was an office document containing directions from the Governor to the immigration officers and explaining to them how they should administer the immigration regulations. But the document that was actually published was not in legal phraseology; it was just a sort of popular exposition of this for the general public. Before I come to the document and say what has happened to it—which I will in a moment or two—I would like to say a word about immigration.
  I say at once that I accept the principles of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Of course, we want co-operation, and everything will be done to promote that. But there are immigration regulations in every British Colony, and nobody knows this better than the noble Viscount opposite. In the case of the Gold Coast there happens to be a special old treaty with the Dutch, under which they are entitled with us to have the same immigration rights as we have there: so we are bound by most-favoured-nation obligations. I can tell your Lordships

  537
  that conferences have been held, both in the Colony and here, with those who have had misgivings about it. There is no sort of intention of using these or any other regulations to interfere with the economic development of the country by British firms, or by firms from the United States and by other well-managed and useful enterprises. I can assure noble Lords that, both out there and here, these matters have been the subject of friendly conference with those concerned, and I see no reason why we should not anticipate that a sensible and practical understanding will emerge.
  So far as this particular document is concerned, the latest information that I can offer is of something that happened yesterday. This matter was debated in the Legislative Council yesterday, on a Motion by one of the African members. He moved that the directive—that is this document, which has been described as a secretarial "slip-up," or something—should be abrogated and replaced by regulations. In the debate which followed there was general support from all parts of the Legislative Council for the policy of immigration control. I may say that that control is common to all British Colonies; it depends how it is applied. On behalf of the Gold Coast Government, the Attorney-General suggested that, since the explanatory Gazette notice and the directive to the principal immigration officers were evidently capable of misrepresentation, they should be re-framed in order to remove ambiguity. The position at the moment is that both documents are remitted to be re-framed.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether we shall have an opportunity in the British Parliament of seeing the new draft before it is promulgated—as I suppose it will be, if it is to be a regulation—by the Governor in Council, as well as the members of the Gold Coast Legislative Council? I think that is very important. The noble Viscount knows with regard to regulations here how invaluable it has been—and it is now generally accepted—that the regulations should be presented in draft, and that Parliament has a chance of seeing them; then they do not have to be thrown out. This has assumed such great importance that I would suggest to the noble Viscount that it would be a most admirable thing, both for the Gold Coast
  538
  and for this country, if the new draft regulation could be shown, not only to the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast but made available, as a White Paper or in some other convenient form, to the Houses of Parliament here.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have consulted my noble friend in the short time I have had. The noble Viscount knows very well that the Secretary of State has no desire to surrender or evade his proper responsibilities. However, I understand that the regulations issued in the various Colonies by the Governors are issued subject to discussion and consideration by their own Legislative Councils, but they are not submitted to this Parliament. There must be vast numbers of them in the different Colonies.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Naturally they are not normally submitted, but this is a very abnormal case. I appreciate that the form of the regulation is issued by the Governor in Council, but I say without hesitation, as an ex-Secretary of State, that the responsibility for the regulation which is issued by the Governor in Council is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, for which he is responsible to Parliament.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think I will challenge that constitutional doctrine. The Secretary of State does not wish to avoid his responsibilities, but, as the noble Viscount himself has said he is well aware, these various regulations and rules issued in the different Colonies by the Governors, subject to their Executive Council's advice, could not, as a matter of practical administration, come here every time, although the Secretary of State (to whom the Governor is responsible to report) has the final responsibility. My right honourable friend is taking a very close interest in the friendly talks which are going on in connection with this subject, and I will represent to him—I cannot say any more than that now—the exceptional consideration which the noble Viscount has urged. The noble Viscount must not take that to be any form of promise.
  That, my Lords, is the position with regard to that matter, and I think I can fairly say that it has been handled—although there was a little difficulty at the beginning, which I have not sought to hide—with great care and with great anxiety to protect all proper interests. I may add that there will be no dis

  539
  crimination between the wives of officials and those who are not officials. My noble friend is doing his best under considerable difficulties to see that all these matters are dealt with as happily and successfully as possible.
  Finally, may I say this?—and it arises out of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. In this part of Africa there has grown up what he described as an educated middle class, a fact which differentiates it from several other Colonies. My noble friend and His Majesty's Government as a whole have to take account of these developments and deal sensibly with them. We are bound to recognise the legitimate anxieties of educated, trained and competent Africans to take an increasing share in the management of their own country. That is perfectly proper, and we have to do what we can to encourage and help that. I hope that nothing which is said in this House will be construed as prejudicing those healthy developments. Apart from that, with the opportunities that I have had available, I have done my best to reply to the points which have been raised, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, will be more or less satisfied with what I have said.
  7.3 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful, and I renew my apologies to the noble Viscount for asking him to deal with such a complicated question at such short notice. I understand that this notice, or whatever it is called, will cease to be, and will in due course be replaced by another notice. I hope that, so far as possible, the discussions which will lead to those new regulations will be held in London, and that that may be a precedent for the revision of similar regulations in other Colonies. With that, may I thank the noble Viscount for the very great trouble he has taken over dealing with my points, and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion?
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALFORD GAS ORDER, 1949
  Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Alford Gas Company: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  POULTRY KEEPERS AND SALE OF EGGS
  POULTRY KEEPERS AND SALE OF EGGS
  PRINTING OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  PRINTING OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS