Sitting of 22 March 1949

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

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[Mr. Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

HURST PARK RACE COURSE BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Odeyasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the fact that in rural districts many people have no desire to retire at the age of 65 or subsequently, and may therefore never be able to draw their pension, he will consider granting them the option of drawing their pension at 10s. a week at the age of 65 irrespective of whether they continue in employment.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Under present arrangements a person over pension age can draw retirement pension at 70–65 for a woman—whether he has retired or not. If he goes on working between 65 and 70–60 and 65 for a woman—he is covered against unemployment and sickness and can earn a larger pension. These arrangements generally make much better provision for insured persons than that suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Odey: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it is now possible for a man working beyond the
    176
    age of 65 to draw his pension of 10s. or is he compelled to wait?
    Mr. Griffiths: No, he does not draw a retirement pension at 65 unless he has retired. If he stays at work he contributes towards the scheme and is covered for unemployment and sickness benefits. He also gets an added pension. When he reaches 70 a retirement pension is paid to him whether he retires or not.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney BraithwaiteIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reluctance to retire is not confined to rural areas?
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is not the Minister under a contractual obligation to pay a man a pension at 65, and ought not a man to have the right to do what he likes after that age?
    Mr. Griffiths: If we were to regard it from the purely contractual standpoint, then a man would be paid 10s. a week which is the full amount of the contract. In October, 1946, we made pensions of 26s. and 42s. available for people who previously had only earned 10s.

    Coalminers, Industrial Diseases
    Dr. Barnett Strossasked the Minister of National Insurance how many cases of epidermophytosis have been notified to his Department as occurring in coalminers using pithead baths and sustaining infection of the skin of their feet, and whether he accepts this condition as an industrial disease for which compensation should be given under the Industrial Injuries Act.
    Mr. Ronald Williamsasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will consider adding to the list of prescribed industrial diseases the disease of epidermophytosis in cases where that disease has been contracted by coal-miners in pithead baths.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I regret that information is not available about the number of cases of this disease notified to the Department. I am considering the position in relation to benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act in the light of a recent decision of the Commissioner. In this case while stating that the disease is

    177
    not prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act, he suggested that in certain circumstances it might be regarded as contracted by accident and as such already within the scope of the Act.
    Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these cases are quite numerous, tend to spread and that they are easily preventable? Would my right hon. Friend use his influence with the National Coal Board to see that the necessary steps are taken at the pithead baths to ensure that further contagion is prevented?
    Mr. Griffiths: We have no evidence so far of any material increase in the number of cases, but I am given to understand they can in the ordinary way be prevented. I shall take what steps I can in association with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Fuel and Power to see what improvements can be made.
    Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend provide a copy of the decision of the Industrial Injuries Commissioner on this particular point?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in order to secure greater equality of treatment between insured persons reaching pensionable age before and after 5th July, 1948, he will give to the latter who postpone their retirement the option of drawing 10s. a week while still at work in lieu of the increment of 2s. a week for each year worked after retirement age.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The exercise of such an option would be a matter of great difficulty for individuals and might result in the forgoing of substantial benefits now available. It would in any case run counter to the principles underlying the scheme of retirement pensions so recently approved by Parliament.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling on this matter among insured persons who reached pensionable age after the new scheme came into operation? If they continue at work not only do they lose the 10s., but they have to pay 4s. 11d.
    178
    a week in addition. They are in a less favourable position.
    Mr. Griffiths: There are those who regret very much the loss of the 10s. pension but there are 10s. pensioners who would like to come under the new scheme. It is too early yet to arrive at a decision about the effectiveness of the retirement provision.
    Miss Bacon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many who would like the choice to operate the other way round; that there are many people receiving the 10s. a week who would prefer to remain in insurance in order to qualify for sickness benefits and qualify for the extra pension at the end?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is what I have just said. There are some who would rather have the 10s. and others who would prefer to be under the new scheme.
    Mr. McGovern: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this point. I have drawn his attention to a case of two men who were working at the same bench. Before the Labour Government came into power, one of them received the 10s. pension, but the other did not receive it afterwards. Is not that a retrograde step?
    Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with them in two or three years' time when one of them is getting the increased pension and the other is not.
    Mr. McGovern: But they may be dead by that time.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is asking the House to believe that these people are not in a position to exercise their discretion in a matter of this kind? Why cannot he leave it to them to decide where, in their view, the balance of advantage lies?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Act was passed by the House only recently. The question whether or not there should be an option was very fully discussed and it was decided—it was a recommendation of the Beveridge Report and was included in the White Paper of 1944 and in the Act —that the retirement pension should take the place of the old 10s. pension.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal

    179
    to make the pensions retirements pensions rather than old-age pensions was based on the desire to make them at the same time a contribution towards the relief of unemployment; and in view of the fact that labour conditions have wholly changed since then and that it is desirable now to keep people at work if they wish instead of encouraging them to retire, is there not now a case for reconsidering it?
    Mr. Griffiths: The whole purpose of the new provision is to encourage older people who are able to do so to stay at work. Indeed, at the moment 64 per cent. of the men who reach 65 years of age do not retire. There is a very much larger proportion of old people at work today than at any time in the last 50 years.

    Industrial Injuries Commissioners (Decisions)
    Mr. R. Williamsasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is prepared to make arrangements for the publication of the decisions of the Industrial Injuries Commissioners in cases which have arisen and which may, from time to time, arise under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have already been made for the publication of certain decisions selected by the Commissioner, on cases arising under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, copies of which are in the Library.

    Sickness Benefit
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the widespread hardship which is being experienced by large numbers who are unable to follow their employment due to illness and whose financial resources are insufficient to enable them to subsist until they are able to resume their employment, some steps will now be taken to expedite payment of sickness benefit to these people.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The increase in sickness in the last few weeks has led to delays in some places but I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion that delays are widespread. If the hon. Member has any particular places in mind and will let me know I will have immediate inquiries made.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that there are very large numbers of delays? Is it not a fact that to a large extent this is due to shortage of staff? Is it not possible to utilise the services of some of those who are no longer required in connection with clothes rationing to expedite these matters?
    Mr. Griffiths: The fact is that in the last few weeks we have had a very substantial increase in sickness claims. This is not uniform all over the country; it is unfortunately confined to some places where we have been having a very stiff time. There are delays but with improvements in our organisation we are hoping that the situation will be remedied.
    Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards.

    Old Age Pensions
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of National Insurance why an old age pensioner has his pension reduced by 10s. a week after he has been in hospital more than 56 days.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The rates of benefit at present in payment for patients maintained without charge in hospital are in accordance with the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Provisional Regulations. The appropriateness of these rates is still under consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this deduction presses very hardly on pensioners and it is very difficult for them to see why they should be dealt with in this manner when other people in better circumstances do not suffer the reduction?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am awaiting the Committee's Report, and I will then consider the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the category of case in which 21s. a week is deducted?
    Mr. Griffiths: This works both ways. There are old age pensioners who for the first time in their lives under the new Act are receiving some proportion of a pension none of which they would have received before 5th July last.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Remploy Factories, Staffordshire
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour how many Remploy factories have been established in North Staffordshire; and how many more are considered necessary by him.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Three—at Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle and Longton. On present evidence these should be sufficient for the needs of the area but, if they are not, others will be provided.
    Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an area where the majority of the workers are pottery workers and miners the incidence of industrial disease and accidents is inevitably high? Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, the incidence of disease is high there, but it is high in many other industries elsewhere. However, that is borne in mind. We take into consideration the number of persons requiring this special treatment and we hope to provide it.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are employed in the Remploy Factory in Leek Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent; and how many of them have suffered from industrial accident or industrial disease before being employed there.
    Mr. Isaacs: There were 43 severely disabled persons employed at 11th March, 1949, all of whom were men. Of these, 11 were admitted on the grounds of having suffered from industrial accident or industrial disease.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what a Remploy Factory is?
    Mr. Isaacs: I thought that potted title was well known. It is the short name of the factories established by the Disabled Persons' Employment Corporation.
    Dr. Stross: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what method is used for the selection of these people, and the grounds on which they are selected?
    Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. Friend will put that question down, I shall be very happy indeed to give him the information.

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total number of persons waiting to be admitted for a vocational training course; and how many of them have been waiting for periods of three, six and 12 months, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: Two thousand, seven hundred and eighty-four. I could not give without special inquiry the periods for which individuals have been waiting.
    Mr. Shephard: Is it not a fact that the Minister has given that information previously? Will he assure the House that no man has waited for as long a period as 12 months before undertaking one of these courses?
    Mr. Isaacs: I could not give a definite assurance of that kind. It depends on the trade which the man is seeking and the opportunities which exist for entering it. However, I can assure the House that on an average three months is the maximum waiting period.
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 4,301 persons in Government training centres are women; and for what work the women are being trained.
    Mr. Isaacs: Two hundred women are in training; for canteen cookery, cotton spinning, dressmaking, engineering draughtsmanship, hairdressing, shorthand typing, and retail bespoke tailoring.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. Shephardasked the Minister of Labour what is the average number of European voluntary workers arriving monthly in this country; and what proportion are females suitable for the cotton, woollen and hosiery industries.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)During recent months a monthly average of approximately 430 men and 275 women, plus 475 German women, have been brought to this country. The average number suitable for the industries mentioned was 290.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as far as the hosiery trade is concerned no E.V.Ws.

    183
    have been available for some consider- able time, and will he take steps to see that that trade is treated equally with the cotton and woollen industries?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should check his information. Within the last fortnight that trade has had a very large intake of German women.
    Mr. Shephard: Yes, but 1 asked about E.V.Ws.?

    Short-time Working
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the amount of the present short-time working in British industry; and whether he will arrange for the regular inclusion of a short time working figure in the published unemployment statistics.
    Mr. Isaacs: Information as to the extent of short-time working in the manufacturing industries is obtained only at quarterly intervals. In the week ended 1st January when conditions were abnormal following Christmas. 35,000 operatives were losing an average of 18½ hours. The next figures will relate to the end of March. I will arrange for these, and the figures for subsequent quarterly dates, to be published.

    Statistics
    Squadron-Leader Flemingasked the Minister of Labour how many workers were registered as unemployed at the end of February, 1949; and how many of them were coloured people.
    Mr. Isaacs: The latest date for which figures are available is 14th February, when the total numbers registered as un- employed in Great Britain was 360,283. The number of these who were coloured people is not known.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the president of the West African Traders' Union quotes the "News Chronicle" of 14th February as stating that in the city of Manchester alone there were 3,000 coloured people unemployed? Can he tell us if that is a fact?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not care what newspaper the hon. and gallant Member
    184
    quotes. I shall not endeavour to distinguish in these figures between coloured people and white men.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures of persons unemployed in the towns of Batley and Morley for the months of January in each of the following years, 1949, 1944, 1939, 1934.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply
    The Table below shows the number of unemployed persons on the registers of Batley Employment Exchange and Youth Employment Bureau and Morley Employment Exchange in January in the years in question.

    —

    1949

    1944

    1939

    1934

    Batley

    …

    57

    15

    3,229

    3,592

    Morley

    …

    52

    56

    3,019

    2,374

    Disabled Persons, Batley and Morley
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Labour how many of the persons signing the unemployment register in Batley and Morley in January, 1949, were classified as disabled persons.
    Mr. Isaacs: Thirty-one at Batley and 52 at Morley. Of these eight at Batley and 26 at Morley are classified as severely disabled and needing sheltered employment.

    National Service Hostel, Onslow Square
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 800 single men at present accommodated by the National Service Hostels Corporation at Onslow Square, S.W.7, have been given notice to quit; that this notice expires on 9th April; and if he will give an assurance that these residents will be permitted to continue in occupation until they have been able to find or have been found suitable alternative accommodation.
    Mr. Isaacs: About 700 men employed in less essential types of employment, in whose case the continued provision of subsidised accommodation in a Government hostel is not justified, have been

    185
    given notice to leave the hostel. Local officers of my Department in London have been instruced to give all possible assistance to the men concerned to find other accommodation.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: As our position in London is that we cannot find these men accommodation, either through the L.C.C. or through the Boroughs, is it not possible to continue their residence in that place, either subsidised or unsubsidised, through some machinery open to the Minister?
    Mr. Isaacs: We must take this action. These hostels were operated by the Government and subsidised heavily to provide accommodation for men and women transferred to priority work. We have given every help we can to the persons concerned, but we must end the condition now operating.

    Temporary Premises, Lewisham (Release)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Labour the date when his Department will vacate the premises of 291 Airborne Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Ennersdale Road, Lewisham.
    Mr. Isaacs: In April.

    Domestic Service
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why women between the ages of 18 and 41 years are required to obtain his Department's consent to any engagement in domestic service, notwithstanding that his powers, under the Control of Engagement Order to refuse such consent, are never exercised; and if he will dispense with this formality.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The inclusion of employment in domestic service within the scope of the Order gives an opportunity to distinguish between employment in hardship households, hospitals, etc., and that in other places where the need is not so great. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    Sir J. Mellor: Did not the right non. Gentleman in the Debate on 10th March deny that the Ministry used its powers to prevent any of these engagements? In those circumstances, why should people be put to the necessity of reporting proposed engagements as a mere formality?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I did not deny that this was operating; what I said was that no young woman was refused permission to enter a hardship household in domestic service by the operation of the Control of Engagement Order, and that position stands. We cannot agree to one employer having three or four servants and another not having any
    Sir J. Mellor: But is it not a fact that the Ministry requires these proposed engagements to be reported—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

    Ex-Service Men (Resettlement)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Labour why, in his schemes for assisting ex-Regular members of His Majesty's Forces to resettle in civil life, he provides for grants to be given only in cases of financial necessity; and what standard he will use to decide whether there is financial necessity.
    Mr. Isaacs: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the courses of business training for ex-Regular members of His Majesty's Forces recently introduced. All applicants approved for these courses will receive grants covering tuition fees, travelling expenses incurred in the course of training, and an allowance for text books. Maintenance grants will also be payable, where necessary, in order to provide broadly the reasonable requirements and standard of living to which the applicant is accustomed. For this purpose, as in the case of other comparable resettlement schemes, other income, including the pensions and retired pay payable in a large number of cases, is one of the factors to be taken into account. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the detailed rules governing the assessment of grant which are somewhat long and intricate.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain in working this scheme, and any future scheme he has in mind for ex-Regular members of the Forces, that he does not discourage savings by those members while they are in the Forces, and does not discourage them from staying on to earn their pension?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. These rules are

    187
    administered generously and sympathetically. We are most anxious to help these men who come along for this service.

    Dock Work, Middlesbrough (Dispute)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Labour if, before any alterations were made in the time of attendance of dock workers at Middlesbrough, the fullest opportunity was given to the men to discuss the proposals; and if he is satisfied that the consultative machinery was properly used on this occasion.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand that this matter has been the subject of discussion for close on two years and that the appropriate joint machinery has been fully utilised.
    Mr. Cooper: Since this strike has been going on now for a month, does my right hon. Friend intend to use the services of his Department with a view to obtaining an early settlement, as the trade of the district is being seriously interrupted by this strike?
    Mr. Isaacs: I submit, with respect, that that question goes far beyond the one on the Order Paper, both parts of which I have answered quite definitely.

    Wells House Hotel, Ilkley
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Labour when he intends to use Wells House Hotel, Ilkley, for the accommodation of foreign labour, as it has not been required for a year; and if he will release this extensive accommodation so that it can be put to some valuable use at once.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Following rather prolonged negotiations with the American authorities, additional women are expected to become available under the Westward Ho Scheme in the very near future. If the numbers expected materialise, Wells House will be required to house these workers.

    Cotton Mill Accidents
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons for the substantial increase of mill accidents in
    188
    the cotton industry; and what preventative training is being undertaken.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not aware of such an increase. Fluctuations in accident statistics have been found to be largely affected by fluctuations in numbers employed, and during last year the number of persons employed in the cotton industry increased by about 20,000. More systematic training is widely developing in industry, a number of cotton mills now have special training courses, and encouragement is being given to the establishment of suitable training schemes at other mills.
    Mr. Randall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that an increase of 4,000 in one year is a substantial number and requires some positive action?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid my hon. Friend is quite wrong. When the figures are published I think he will find that they are lower for 1948 than for 1946, and I must compliment some of the employers in the textile industry on the excellent progress that is being made in accident prevention.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the abnormal incidence of hernia and double hernia among power loom overlookers due to their lifting weavers' beams by hand; and will he encourage employers, as far as it is in his power, to extend the use of mobile lifting equipment?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are giving publicity to one mill which has established mechanical handling throughout, and we hope by that means to encourage other employers to do the same thing.

    Brighton
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to find employment for the unemployed in Brighton and what opportunities are open to them; also in what trades in Brighton most unemployment is to be found.
    Mr. Isaacs: The normal machinery of the employment exchange service is available in Brighton to assist unemployed workers to find suitable work. There were 850 vacancies outstanding on 16th

    189
    March. In addition, I am informed that apart from the many building schemes in preparation in the district, industrial developments are projected which, it is expected, will provide employment for some 1,200 men and women. Unemployment is heaviest amongst general labourers and women hotel workers.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Postmaster-General stated that he could do nothing to improve the Post Office conditions in Brighton because of the national manpower situation? In view of the large number of unemployed, especially over 45, and the fact that many unemployed come to me and point out that the Employment Exchange are not optimistic about the future, can the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter and do something more about it?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot comment upon the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question but the situation in Brighton is having active attention. There are 850 vacancies there which we cannot fill because the people are not all suitable for those jobs. The second point which I think Brighton and towns of that character must bear in mind is that if we do get other industries to go there, and those industries require 640 women, it will be difficult for those towns to get the women back into the hotel trade after they have entered other employment.

    Industrial Disputes (Statistics)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour the total number of strikes notified to his Department during 1948; and how many originated in the mining industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of disputes causing stoppage of work which came to the notice of my Department in 1948 was 1,758, of which 1,115 were in the coal-mining industry.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister consider that this answer lends colour to the suggestion that nationalisation is the means of wiping out disunity in industry?
    Mr. Isaacs: Many of those strikes affect a comparatively few people and last only for a day or so but, judging from the information as to the causes of them, I
    190
    am afraid they would have been much wider and longer had it not been for nationalisation.
    Mr. McAdam: Could the Minister give the comparable figures for 1921?

  SCOTLAND

    Analgesia
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases in Scotland was analgesia administered by domiciliary midwives or nurses trained in midwifery in the years 1938, 1944, 1947 and 1948, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): There could not have been any cases in 1938 and 1944 because it was only in July, 1946, that the Central Midwives Board for Scotland authorised the administration of analgesia by midwives. In 1947 there were 120 cases and in 1948, according to preliminary returns, about 800.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to make sure that this service is extended and is known and encouraged by his Department, because it is not so at the moment?
    Colonel Hutchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman say, of the figures he has given for 1947 and 1948, how many of those cases were treated without the presence of a doctor?
    Mr. Woodburn: In Scotland more than half the cases of births outside hospitals were treated with a doctor present, and in every case the doctor has the authority over the case.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the total number of births these figures represent?
    Mr. Woodburn: About half the total number of 116,000 births in Scotland take place in hospital, more than half of them are under the care of a doctor, and less than half of them have the midwife only present at the birth.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a terrible percentage in Scotland as compared with the figures which the English Minister gave the other day?
    Mr. Woodburn: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken because in Scotland the tradition is different. As I mentioned last week, the doctor is in charge of the case, and until 1946 midwives were not allowed to take charge.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland at what rate he expects that midwives, and nurses qualified in midwifery, in Scotland will be trained during the next two years in the use of analgesia; and when he anticipates that such training will be completed.
    Mr. Woodburn: Training in analgesia is now being given to certified midwives at the rate of almost 250 a year, and to all student midwives numbering about 600 a year. I have every hope that by the end of 1950 over three-quarters of the midwives then practising in Scotland will have had this training, and my aim is to have the process substantially complete by the end of 1951.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does that figure include, not only midwives, but nurses qualified in midwifery, which is not quite the same thing?
    Mr. Woodburn: The Question relates only to midwives. I take it that all the nurses are being trained.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Question clearly says,
    "and nurses qualified in midwifery."
    Mr. Woodburn: If they are qualified in midwifery they have been trained in the use of analgesia.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the mothers of Scotland, who have expected and been entitled to the services of a doctor, will not now be fobbed off by midwives; and will he hand the midwives over to hon. Members opposite who have been in labour pains since the General Election of 1945 and who have not yet produced a policy?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the last question, is the Secretary of State aware that the midwives of Scotland will not like to be regarded as "fobbed off"—and may I ask him by what date he considers there will be a sufficient number of doctors to attend all confinements?
    Mr. Woodburn: In Scotland the number of cases in which the doctor himself is present at confinements is increasing. We certainly have no intention of taking away from the doctor the responsibility of doing the job.

    Local Authority Members (Payment)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state in detail the schemes in operation in the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow and the counties of Ayrshire, Dumbartonshire, Fifeshire and Lanarkshire to reimburse councillors for loss of salary or wage while on local government work.
    Mr. Woodburn: Payments to local authority members by way of financial loss allowance are made in accordance with Sections 112 and 118 of the Local Government Act, 1948, and the Local Government (Travelling Allowances, etc.) (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that miners attending council meetings lose a bonus shift and that this is not accounted for when meetings are arranged; and would he arrange a meeting with representatives of local authorities and the Coal Board in order to try to get something done about this very serious handicap to miners?
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in local government in Scotland with the present system of compensating members of local authorities for loss of earnings while engaged on local government work; and if he will make some inquiries on the subject and. if necessary, take such action as he may regard as appropriate to ensure that no hardship will be involved by those who are prepared to devote themselves to the service of local government.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have received a number of representations on the subject of financial loss allowances but these have not disclosed any conditions which were not before Parliament when it passed the Local Government Act. 1948, and there is no likelihood of any amendment being proposed.
    Mr. Carmichael: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the passing of the Act was intended to aid councillors, and would he be surprised when I tell him that in the city of Glasgow alone the councillor, because of the passing of this Act, now receives less by way of allowance than the permanent official; and is he aware of the treatment of miners in regard to wages for loss of employment which operates under the Act?
    Mr. Woodburn: Both these points were discussed when the matter was before the House. I think that at that time it was resolved that the question of the miners' bonus shift was a matter for arrangement between the Coal Board and the Miners' Union. Certainly, there is no likelihood of our going back on that in the near future.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Secretary of State aware, in spite of his contradiction, of the case where a member of the Airdrie town council was refused an allowance because he did not have a job at the time and was refused unemployment benefit because he was not available due to his attending the meetings?
    Mr. Woodburn: I will look into that case if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars. I cannot speak of cases of which I have no knowledge.

    Aged Infirm, Glasgow
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of aged infirm in Glasgow awaiting admission to hospital for treatment and care and the average weekly admission; and what system is adopted by the Regional Hospital Board to see that each hospital accepts its responsibility in this essential service to the aged infirm.
    Mr. Woodburn: The Regional Hospital Board are at present inquiring into this whole problem in order to determine the responsibilities of each of the hospitals concerned for this class of patient, but no complete information of the kind for which the hon. Member asks is yet available. The Board have a Central Admission Bureau which is gradually assuming responsibility for hospital admissions in the Glasgow area and especially for this class of person.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does my right hon. Friend say that the inquiry into the responsibilities for these aged infirm people has been taking place ever since the Act came into operation in July, 1948? Surely, whilst the inquiry is being made they should be entitled to some form of easing of their troubles.
    Mr. Woodburn: The point is that until July, 1948, the voluntary hospitals had no responsibility at all for this type of patient; that was dealt with by the local authority. This is an entirely new responsibility. Unfortunately, however, a number of people are contracting tuberculosis because there are not enough nurses to permit of hospital treatment. Therefore, in deciding who shall go into hospital first, we must select the most urgent cases. I think that many old people would agree that those whose lives are at stake should receive priority in treatment.
    Mr. Carmichael: I am not satisfied.

    National Health Service (Aliens)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether an alien on a visit to Scotland, either in connection with his business or on holiday, is able to obtain dentures and spectacles free of charge under the National Health Service scheme.
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, if he remains in the country long enough to be fitted with them in his ordinary turn.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is not this free gift scheme rather hard upon our taxpayers?
    Mr. Maclay: What arrangement exists to ensure that such an individual, who obtains a set of dentures or pair of spectacles in Scotland, does not cross the Border and obtain another set or pair?

  EX-SERVICE PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)
  Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Pensions how many motor cars have been made available to pensioners.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): Up to date, 101.
  Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister satisfied that pensioners in general prefer this new conveyance to the old type of single seater car?
  Mr. Marquand: It is quite optional. A pensioner who has a motor cycle may keep it if he so wishes.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY

    Uniform Allowances
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what uniform allowances are given to officers in the Territorial Army; and if he will give an assurance that all officers who joined or rejoined the Territorial Army since 1945 are eligible for these allowances.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): As from 3rd November, 1948, Territorial Army Officers have received the following initial uniform allowances: £21 if commissioned for the first time or if joining more than four years after previous military commissioned service; £10 10s. if joining with a break from previous military commissioned service of between one and four years. No uniform allowance is granted if such a break in service is less than one year. Before 3rd November, 1948, all Territorial Army officers received an initial outfit allowance of £7 10s. I am not prepared to make officers who joined or rejoined the Territorial Army before 3rd November, 1948, eligible for the rates and conditions of uniform allowance which became operative from that date.
    Mr. Low: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he wants to penalise those people who answered his call earlier? Why cannot he make this increased grant, which was welcomed by everybody, retrospective? What is the difference?
    Mr. Shinwell: They have the advantage of not having been too long separated from actual service and, therefore, they had the uniform in hand.

    Anti-Aircraft Command
    Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now state the strength of Territorial Army personnel in the Anti-Aircraft Command; and the Territorial Army Establishment for that Command.
    Mr. Shinwell: Since I answered a previous question by the hon. Member on this subject last Tuesday, I have looked further into this matter. It is quite true that in an answer which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT On 2nd March, 1948, the provisional Territorial establishment and the strength of Anti-Aircraft Command at that date were given, hut, since then, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, the question has been further considered very carefully from the point of view of security, and we have decided that it would not be in the public interest to continue to publish the figures of this Command separately.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this time last week he said he would give the figures if I put a question down? What has happened between last Tuesday and today which has made security so very important?
    Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no, I said nothing of the sort. I was not quite so definite as that. Ali I did was to promise to furnish what information I thought should be furnished

    Efficiency Decoration
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the increasing disappointment of Territorial Army officers at the continuing delay in the announcement of the conditions governing the award of the efficiency decoration and medal; why it has not been possible to make an announcement on this matter early in the New Year, as promised; and when the announcement will be made.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret the delay in this matter, but following the consultations with other Commonwealth countries, mentioned in answer to a previous question by the hon. and gallant Member, a number of points of detail remained to be settled. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in the course of the next few weeks.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this disappointment is shared by other ranks, as well as officers, who at present find that it takes about two years to establish a claim for a Territorial medal? Will he look closely at the claims of the Territorial Army Nursing Service in this regard?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am as anxious to have this matter expedited as the hon. Member. There has been some difficulty about it, very largely in relation to the preparation for the Royal Warrant, but I hope to have it settled in a few weeks' time.

  BRITISH ARMY

    R.A.S.C. (Fleet Unit)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the correspondence, details of which have been sent to him, concerning the conditions of the Royal Army Service Corps, Fleet Administrative Unit; and if he is now in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Shinwell: In accordance with instructions recently given, officers of the R.A.S.C. Fleet will be placed on new and improved scales of pay with effect from the pay day nearest to 1st April, 1949. This is an interim arrangement which is without prejudice to further negotiations. As stated in a reply to a Question by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) on 7th December, 1948, advance payments have already been made on account of arrears of pay which will eventually become due when a final settlement, with a suitable antedate, has been reached.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does the Secretary of State for War wonder that recruiting is slack, when there is such uncertainty about the future of these officers?
    Mr. Shinwell: This has nothing to do with recruiting at all.

    No. 1 Dress
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War what is the cause of the continued delay in the issue of blue uniform to the Army; and whether he is aware of the disappointment of all ranks at this unexplained delay.
    Mr. Shinwell: It was explained in Army Order 54 of 1947, that owing to the general shortage of materials and difficulties of production some time must necessarily elapse before No. 1 Dress could be brought into general use. These difficulties still continue. In the case of Regular officers it has been possible to
    198
    make a start in introducing No. 1 Dress by stages, because in their case it takes the place of Service dress, and is made from the same cloth. In the case of other ranks, this is not possible at present because for them it would be an additional suit, made from cloth superior to that used for battledress.
    Major Beamish: Is it not possible to, start now towards getting rid of this awful battledress as a walking out uniform by issuing No. 1 Dress to various arms of the Service, or even to separate units? Is there any reason to wait until there is sufficient No. 1 Dress for the whole Army at the same time?
    Mr. Shinwell: I thought I had given the answer to that question already.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that men in the Army are much more concerned whether they will get a suit of civilian clothes when they come out than they are with a new uniform?
    Major Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman said he thinks he has given the answer, but I am not aware that he did. Could we have the answer now?
    Mr. Shinwell: The answer is in the negative.

    Training Area, Perthshire
    Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to withdraw the training order in respect of the area known as Lurgan Hill on the estate of Strowan near Comrie, Perthshire.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not possible to withdraw the training order in respect of Lurgan Hill until the Department has acquired the use of an alternative area in the neighbourhood, which will release some land now covered by the order.
    Mr. Snadden: Will the Secretary of State take into account that this land comprises a very important agricultural unit, including a dairy farm, and that other land is said to be available? Will he look into the question?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am very anxious not to cause disturbance of agricultural land, but we simply must have the land for training purposes. Otherwise, the men in the Forces will not be adequately trained.

    National Service Men
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Service men who have been killed on active service overseas during each of the past two years; with particulars of their ages and length of service.
    Mr. Shinwell: This information is not available centrally in the form asked for. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving such information as is readily available.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that some of the men killed in Malaya in fact only had five months' Service?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no information on that score and I doubt whether I could get it easily.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny it?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is very difficult to ask the officers on the spot to prepare information of this character, although I do not complain about hon. and gallant Members asking for it. But they have a pretty tough job on their hands at present, and I do not want to embarrass them unduly.
    Mr. Turton: Surely that information comes over to the Casualty Branch of the War Office and can be checked without any interference with the officers on the spot at all?
    Mr. Shinwell: I happen to know better than the hon. Member. This requires a disproportionate amount of work.
    Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of the greatest concern to all of us—at any rate on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly, and I am glad if I have the support of other hon. Members—to know that men are not sent into action with inadequate training.
    Mr. Shinwell: I deny emphatically that men are sent into action without adequate training.
    Following is the table

    British Army officers and other ranks who have been killed in action or who have died of wounds in Palestine and Malaya

    Officers

    Other Ranks

    Palestine, 1st January, 1947, to 7th July, 1948

    15

    160

    Malaya, 1st May, 1948, to 28th February, 1949

    8

    21

    These figures include Regulars as well as National Servicemen. It would not be possible without a disproportionate amount of work to give separate figures for National Servicemen or to give particulars of their ages and length of service.
    Brigadier Headasked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Servicemen who have been sent overseas from this country during each of the past two years to stations where they are engaged on active service, such as in Palestine and Malaya.
    Mr. Shinwell: This information is not readily available and could not be produced without a disproportionate amount of work.
    Brigadier Head: Does not the Secretary of State have always in the War Office a list of personnel sent overseas and a return of casualties? Cannot that be checked as a normal routine matter in the "A" Branch without any additional work?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member has specified two particular theatres, Palestine and Malaya. Men are not always sent to a particular theatre in that sense. For example, men sent to Malaya would be posted to the Far East and then allotted to Malaya from there, and the same applied to Palestine, where men were posted from the Middle East. It is not quite so easy to get the information as the hon. and gallant Member suggests.
    Brigadier Head: My Question was designed to cover areas considered as areas of active service and I instanced Palestine and Malaya not as specific areas but as active service areas.
    Mr. Shinwell: Technically speaking, men in B.A.O.R. are on active service.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that Tories can at any time get any information they want at the War Office?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the information required in this Question must be in the possession of officers in charge of records and of the War Office? It must be, "A" branch is for that purpose.
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, if it must be, I would have given the information, but it does not happen to "must be."

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Development Charge (Charities)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the fear of a development charge is preventing charitable institutions, not run for private profit, from acquiring the properties essential for the carrying out of their responsibilities, and if he will take steps to provide exemption from development tax in such cases.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): There is no ground for such fear. Provided that a charity pays no more for land it requires than the value of that land for its existing use, the total cost of the land after payment of development charge ought not to be more and might well be less than the charity would have paid before the Act was passed. For further details, I would refer the hon. Member to Part III of the Practice Notes on Development Charges which the Central Land Board have just issued.
    Mr. Lipson: Does the answer mean that it applies also to buildings acquired by charitable institutions? Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to charitable institutions that there will be no development charge on properties they take over, as that is what they want to be assured about?
    Mr. King: I think the hon. Member is confusing two issues. Land in the possession of charities on 1st July may be exempted from development charge. New land they acquire should be purchased at existing use value and then there may be a development charge.

    New Towns (Factories)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is in communication with local authorities with a view to compilation of a register of firms desirous of seeking factory accommodation in one or other of the new towns together with a list of operatives willing to transfer with their firms.
    Mr. King: Responsibility for the distribution of industry rests primarily
    202
    with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with whose Department the New Town Development Corporations are in regular consultation as to the selection of firms for transfer to the new towns. Some New Town Corporations are already in touch with the appropriate local authorities who are supplying information of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend as far as it is available. Suitable arrangements for the interchange of information between all corporations and the local authorities concerned will be extended as circumstances require.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is there any central place where all the available material collected by these sources can be referred to?
    Mr. King: Yes, Sir, in general the Board of Trade is responsible.

    Open Country (Access)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will make a statement on the result of his consultations with the Minister of Health on steps to be taken to implement the recommendations of the Gathering Grounds Sub-Committee concerning public access.
    Mr. King: Provision has been made in the National Parks Bill for making open country available for access. Where such open country includes gathering grounds, my right hon. Friend has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that there will be consultation between our two Departments about the application of the access provisions.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is some months since his right hon. Friend informed me that consultations of this kind were taking place and only a few weeks ago that the Minister of Health told me that there was nothing to report? Must these developments await the passing of the National Parks Bill?
    Mr. King: The answer I gave was that consultation would take place over particular gathering grounds to which it was thought access might be made and those consultations would take place at the time the order was about to be made.

  REFERENDUM (PROPOSED INQUIRY)
  Sir William Darlingasked the Prime Minister, in view of the adoption of a referendum in Newfoundland on the issue of self-Government, if he will consider setting up a committee to investigate the possibility of embodying this device in the British Constitution.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.
  Sir W. Darling: May I assume from that answer that the democratic device initiated by Graham Wallas, Robert Blatchford, Sidney Webb—[HON. MEMBERS "Lord Balfour."]—Lord Balfour was also an approver—this device, which is adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand, does not commend itself to the Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: It does not commend itself to me in the circumstances of this country.

  WOOLLEN INDUSTRY (INQUIRY)
  Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council what examinations of the woollen industry are at present being carried out by the Committee on Industrial Productivity and its four panels.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): None, Sir. Neither the Committee on Industrial Productivity nor its panels are at present investigating the woollen industry. A preliminary survey of research and development of textile machines, including those used by the woollen industry, is, however, being made.
  Mr. Erroll: Would not it be more appropriate for the Committee to investigate the problems of the fibre qualities supplied rather than dealing with the machinery, which must depend on the quality of the fibre supplied?
  Mr. Morrison: The Committee has its hands pretty full and there must be a limit to new things to which we ask the Committee to give attention.
  Mr. Mikardo: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Committee to look at one
  204
  small but very vital job, which is the waste and duplication involved in the lack of co-ordination in research programmes as between the Torrington Institute, the Leeds University, the Shirley Institute and one or two other similar institutes?
  Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (CONCERT HALL)
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied that in the permanent Concert Hall, which is to form part of the Festival of Britain building scheme, it will be possible to avoid the ill effect of severe vibrations caused by trains passing over the bridge and the fact that the whole site area is composed of made-up material; and whether he will reconsider the position and give support to the reconstruction of Queens Hall to be ready in time for the Festival opening.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am assured by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research that modern acoustic methods make it possible to measure very exactly the amount of sound and vibration to be excluded. A great deal is known about what building construction and materials will be required for prevent the vibrations from entering the Concert Hall. The Department's Building Research Station has carried out for the London County Council a very thorough survey of the sound and vibration problems on the site, and a leading acoustic expert is being employed as an adviser. In addition experiments are in progress to reduce sound vibration at its source. Trial borings showing the nature of the sub-soil are also available. The question of made-up ground is not a factor at all, as the building will have its foundations on ballast over blue clay which is well known to be one of the best foundations available. On the basis of this evidence and advice measures have been incorporated in the plans of the Concert Hall to avoid any ill effects of vibrations. The Government are also giving facilities for the reconstruction of the Queens Hall, and it is hoped that the promoters will be able to complete the work in time for the Festival opening.
  Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman and whether the designs for all these buildings to be erected for the Festival of Britain are now agreed on and the contracts issued?
  Mr. Morrison: I can say that the greatest care is being taken about the designs.
  Mr. Driberg: Are modern acoustic methods as certain as the experts would like us to think they are? Was not there some difficulty about the County Hall a few years back?
  Mr. Morrison: I would not defend the acoustics of the County Hall for anything. They are very bad. But I understand that the science of acoustics has very much improved in recent years, though other people may have a different opinion.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under head IV of the Purchase Tax (No. 5) Order, 1948, vaccines have been exempted from Purchase Tax so long as they are prepared for use by injection or by application to the scarified skin of the user, but that vaccines are chargeable with Purchase Tax if intended for oral administration; and whether, in view of the fact that there is a growing body of favourable opinion towards the latter form of therapy, steps can be taken to ensure that vaccines for oral administration are placed in the same position as other vaccines so far as Purchase Tax is concerned.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The trade organisation most concerned has already been informed that vaccines for oral administration will be considered when the next Treasury Exemptions Order is being prepared.

    Motorcar Travel (Foreign Currency)
    Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to restore the special allowance of foreign currency for running expenses to persons who take their motorcars abroad on short visits.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on 17th March.
    Sir J. Mellor: But why is the allowance only to be restored from 1st May? Why should it not be restored for Easter?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Because 1st May is the beginning of the next year in these matters.

    Technical and Scientific Reports (Publication)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Report on Water Pollution Research covering 1947 has only just been made available after a delay of 14 months, and the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1947 did not appear until the end of February this year; and whether he will take steps to expedite the publication of technical and scientific reports of this kind, which lose their value if unduly delayed.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. I regret the delay caused mainly by printing difficulties which I hope will not recur.

    Petrol Tax
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the repeal of the duty of 9d. per gallon on motor spirit used for research and experimental purposes and for engine testing by motor manufacturers; and if motor spirit so used will be placed in the same category as diesel oil used for engine testing.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.
    Sir P. Hannon: Having anticipated that reply, may I ask whether the Chancellor will keep this suggestion in the background in the preparation of his Budget?

    International Gifts
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a list of all free and voluntary gifts in cash or kind that had been made to

    207
    this country since the war by other countries; and what gifts of a similar nature have been made to other countries.
    Mr. Jay: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the gifts referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Freeman: Could my hon. Friend tell the House the total sum involved in each case?
    Mr. Jay: The total of the gifts we have made greatly exceeds the gifts which we have received.
    Following is the list of gifts
    Apart from E.R.P. aid and post-war settlements with U.S.A. and Canada, gifts from other countries to the United Kingdom from the end of the war have been as follow:

    £million

    Australia

    28

    New Zealand

    10

    South Africa (gold)

    1

    Sundry gifts of food (excluding private gifts)

    1

    Total

    40

    2. In the same period, the United Kingdom made gifts in cash and kind to other countries, or wrote off debts, etc., as follow:

    £million

    UNRRA

    155

    I.R.O.

    11·2

    Civil Affairs (not recoverable)

    49

    Greece Armed Forces initial equipment, maintenance, etc.

    31

    —Surplus stores and relief supplies

    2

    Poland—Welfare and Social Services June, 1946—March, 1947

    5

    —Surplus stores

    6

    Austria—before 1st April, 1946

    10

    —post UNRRA

    6

    —Surplus machine tools

    0·125

    Hungary—surplus machine tools

    0·2

    Italy—estimated value of surplus stores in excess of payments under financial agreement

    55

    Netherlands — military equipment and surpluses, estimated portion in excess of payment under Debt Settlement

    16

    Roumania—medical supplies and surplus Army foodstuffs

    0·02

    U.N. Fund for Arab refugees in Palestine

    1

    Ex-Italian colonies—cost of administration

    11·3

    Burma—cancellation of debt

    15

    — B.M.A. expenditure (cancelled claim)

    23

    Total (say)

    400

    3. E.R.P.— As at 18th March the U.K. had received from E.C.A. dollar assistance to the value of £232,300,000 of which £64,100,000 had been notified as E.C.A. loan.
    4. Intra-European Payments Scheme. —The use of drawing rights by the U.K. and by other participating countries on the U.K. has been as follow:

    £million

    Up to end1948

    Up to18th March 1949

    Drawn by U.K.

    5·6

    5·6

    Drawn on U.K. by other countries

    11·9

    34·6

    Net use

    6·3

    29·0

    Currency Allowance (U.S.A.)
    Miss Baconasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that while his regulations permit parents of American brides to travel to America to see their daughters, it is not permitted for the parents to pay the return fare of their daughters in order for them to visit Great Britain; and if he will take steps to remedy this anomaly.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We cannot as a general rule afford to allow the payment of fares by residents on behalf of nonresidents because of the resulting loss of foreign exchange. My right hon. and learned Friend is, however, always ready to allow exceptions on hardship grounds; in particular he would be prepared in future, where close relatives are concerned, to consider sympathetically such payments in cases where the non-resident cannot afford to pay his or her own fare.
    Miss Bacon: Would my right hon. Friend say what means test would be applied to this? Is he aware that in the case which I brought to his notice both parents desired to visit their daughter in America and were paying British currency to a British shipping company? When they decided to bring their daughter over to this country, and pay British currency to the same British shipping company, they were told that dollars were involved.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Dollars are involved, but in cases of that kind my right hon. Friend would allow the visit to take place.

    Aircraft Purchases (Currency)
    Major Beamishasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to his refusal to grant British air charter companies sufficient hard currency to buy aircraft and spare parts, unobtainable in the United Kingdom, these companies are unable to provide the services required by British firms with overseas interests and the latter are thus forced to spend hard currency to obtain the services of foreign air lines; and if he will now alter this policy.
    Mr. Jay: Applications for the expenditure of hard currency on aircraft or spare parts are considered on their merits. I am not aware that permission has been refused in any case with the results suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. If he has a specific case in mind, perhaps he will let me have the particulars and I will look into it.
    Major Beamish: I certainly will.

    Special Contribution
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations provide for the Treasury to pay interest on any sum of Special Contribution paid on or after 1st January, 1949, but before assessment, in excess of the amount which turns out to be due.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No.
    Mr. Keeling: As a special contributor who wishes to avoid interest has to guess the amount due, does the reply mean that if he guesses "tails," he loses, and if he guesses "heads," the Chancellor wins?
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That is exactly what it does mean.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It means that we must comply with the law.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is Income Tax repayable on interest charged by the Treasury on overdue contributions?

    Medicines and Drugs
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Notice 78N, issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, it is only permitted, in respect of certain medicines and drugs sold in multiple
    210
    packs, for the outer container to bear the brand name or trade mark, and that the inner container must not bear such name or trade mark; what is the reason for this provision, and whether, in view of the special arrangements required, he will consider dispensing with it.
    Mr. Jay: The scheme explained in this notice will enable branded or proprietary forms of certain drugs and medicines to be supplied free of Purchase Tax to pharmacists who require them for dispensing. Except in the case of those substances which can be supplied to the public only on a doctor's prescription, the scheme requires that the dispensed medicine shall not reach the consumer in the branded or proprietary get-up. The particular provision referred to enables perishable substances which must be dispensed in their original containers to participate in the scheme and is an essential part of it.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a reassurance to the individual consumer to get the article with the brand name on it?
    Mr. Jay: In that case it could not contain the branded name, if it was to be free of Purchase Tax, and comply with the law.

    Argentine Meat Agreement (Payments)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date the sums set out in Article IV (a) of the Andes Agreement were transferred by His Majesty's Government to the Argentine Government.
    Mr. Jay: The date was 1st March, 1948.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the whole sum transferred under this article? Does not it mean that we paid in advance for all the meat due from the Argentine; and would the hon. Gentleman correct what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who said we had only paid for the meat that had been delivered.
    Mr. Jay: The arrangement was clearly set out in the White Paper. If the meat was not delivered then, if we wished, we could ask for the money to be returned.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: So we have paid?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Keeling.
    Captain Crookshank—
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: On a point of Order.
    Mr. Speaker: There is no point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has risen to put a Supplementary on Question 57. It is perfectly true that I had called the next Question, but the time for it has now elapsed.
    Captain Crookshank: It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that, according to the Agreement, the money had to be paid in advance. The question is whether the right hon. Lady was right in saying that we had only in fact paid for what we had received, or whether we had carried out the Agreement and paid it all in advance. We all want the answer to that question.
    Mr. Jay: If my right hon. Friend said that we should receive all the meat for which we paid, she was perfectly correct, because we are receiving it.
    Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman will keep on misunderstanding the question. What the right hon. Lady said was that we had only paid for what we had received, whereas the Agreement was that we should pay in advance for everything which was covered by the Agreement. I understand that the hon. Gentleman now says that we did in fact pay in advance for all that was covered by the Agreement. Therefore, the right hon. Lady was wrong, and that is what we want corrected.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Captain Crookshank: Mr. Speaker, might I press the hon. Gentleman. What is involved here on the figures—
    Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of Order. Would it not be in Order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to press the right hon. Lady instead of my hon. Friend?
    Captain Crookshank: Mr. Speaker, might I repeat the point on which we want to press the hon. Gentleman. It is one of importance to everybody because it involves a sum of at least £25 million—that is, 25 per cent. of the £100 million
    212
    which is involved, let alone the advance payment of £10 million. Therefore, this is a matter of great importance to everyone in this House. Cannot the hon. Gentleman answer the question and say whether it is right or wrong?
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not choose to answer, I cannot compel him.
    Captain Crookshank: Mr. Speaker, what remedy has this House got when hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Ladies, who after all are responsible Members of the Government, give us contradictory statements? How can we get any reply out of them? Is it not really up to the Prime Minister, who is present, to pay some attention to this problem and at least to try to get the hon. Gentleman to give a reply?
    Mr. Speaker: Every Minister is entitled to say, "I will not answer." That is all part of the rules. I cannot do anything. It is up to the Minister concerned. The House must take it or leave it: we cannot do anything else.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to Give notice that in view of the deliberate misstatement of fact by the Government I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS (REMOVAL)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ERROLL
  65. To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce a further general revocation of industrial controls.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer Question No. 65.
  Yes, Sir. I have recently given special attention to quota controls, that is the arrangements which limit, firm by firm, the volume of materials they may acquire, or use, or sell. So long as there is a serious shortage of any important industrial material, it has to be rationed. It is often the case that a trade has no common measure by which it may be rationed except that of past performance —sometimes going back to pre-war years.

  213
  Other quota systems derive from the need to restrict hard currency purchases by import licensing.
  All quota arrangements tend to hold back efficient firms and sustain the inefficient. It has therefore been the Government's policy progressively to do away with quotas wherever the supply position permits. Since last November, 25 materials for use in more than 100 industries have been freed from this form of control.
  I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Some of these controls have already been relaxed; and I informed the House about paper in reply to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 18th January. The removal of export licensing from cotton piece goods, the abolition of furniture permits, and the relaxations of the control of asphalt, building board, leather, footwear repairs, packaging, surgical rubber gloves, willows, photographic stills, and silk goods have already been announced. The most important items in the list are paper; most types of leather; a number of paint materials; the industrial uses of cloth, formerly rationed; and nearly all types of hardwood.
  About a dozen species of hardwood are still scarce and most of them cost us dollars. These species account for 10 or 15 per cent. of total usage but they will have to remain subject to licensing. Hardwood will continue to pass through Government stocks as at present and the Timber Control will exercise discretion in selling their stock by paying special attention, in the case of the better grades, to the use for which the buyer seeks to acquire them. Neither the price control of hardwood nor its purchase on Government account will be affected.
  I have also decided on some further relaxations of other kinds of control the most important of these is the decontrol of the distribution of matches which will take effect in about four months. Some commodities—tanning materials, synthetic rubber, rosin, pin oil, turpentine, oak veneers, and building board will revert from public to private purchase.
  The amendment of the relevant statutory instruments cannot all be done at once. The date from which these relaxa-
  214
  tions will take effect will therefore be announced separately.
  Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister give the non-political reason for revoking these controls en masse and not one by one as each becomes redundant; and can he say how many civil servants will be freed by these revocations?
  Mr. Wilson: In answer to the first question I think I made it pretty clear that a large number of these controls—cotton piece goods, asphalt, building board, leather, footwear repairs, packaging, surgical rubber gloves, willows and photographic stills—have already been revoked case by case as soon as it became possible, without waiting to do it en masse. So far as the release of civil servants is concerned, I estimate that the total number involved, apart from the 1,000 released by clothing rationing, will be about a further 300.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in following the doctrines and policy of the party on this side of the House, and in carrying out in a hesitant way, measures which we have repeatedly urged upon the Government, he will find general support on these benches, and may we also ask him to continue with a little more boldness the good work he has begun?
  Mr. Wilson: I am aware that in these decontrols we are, as always, a few steps ahead of the Opposition. In fact, the committee which the Tory Central Office set up in 1946 has still not reported on the controls they want to take off. Indeed, with one or two exceptions, not a single one of the decontrols announced this afternoon have ever been suggested by any responsible leader of the Opposition?
  Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he held up the announcement until after the election?
  Mr. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the supplementary answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) a week ago.
  Mr. Maurice Webb: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House his intentions in this field in respect of the wool textile

  215
  industry, particularly the Wool Control Board?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I am watching this situation on wool very carefully. I am reviewing the degree of control required by the woollen and worsted industries. The supply position in respect of worsted yarns is still very difficult, but I hope I can make early progress on the decontrol of woollen yarn and cloth, provided that we can find a way of doing that while still leaving the utility programme properly safeguarded.
  Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposes to continue the present system of steel rationing, and whether he can hold out any hope, that because of increased steel supplies, he can alleviate the present situation at an early date?
  Mr. Wilson: I would ask my right hon. Friend to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
  Mr. John E. Haire: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is retaining sufficient power to maintain the control of maximum prices with minimum qualities for hardwoods, and would he ensure that, when hardwood is released freely for the furniture industry, there will be no leakage to other industries?
  Mr. Wilson: I hope I have made it clear from my answer that, as soon as this Order comes into effect, hardwood will be quite free for consumption by all purchasers, and not only the furniture industry. Certainly, we have kept on the fullest possible control of prices of hardwood. So far as quality is concerned, my hon. Friend knows the position in respect of the furniture utility scheme.
  Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that the sup-

  PART 1.—REMOVAL OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS

  Commodity

  Main end-use

  Commodity

  Main end-use

  North American

  Brake linings

  Borax

  Adhesives

  Asphalt

  Car batteries

  (non-statutory)

  Glass

  (import quotas)

  Floor compositions

  Leather

  Paint

  Pottery

  Printing ink

  Metal and flux

  Tank linings

  Vitreous enamel

  Tiles

  plies of hardwood will be sufficient to ensure the manufacture of sufficient utility furniture?
  Mr. Wilson: I would not have taken off this control, or any other control, unless I had been satisfied that the supplies are sufficient, and, indeed, when hardwood supplies are sufficient, I hope there will be a substantial substitution of hardwood for softwood and steel.
  Mr. Charles Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has now discovered that the Willow Control Order was completely useless?
  Mr. Wilson: No, Sir; as with all other cases, we have removed the control at the first moment that it was safe to do so.
  Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend take the precaution to see that the removal of these controls will not adversely affect the prices of the various commodities concerned?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. Price control is, in fact, in the main maintained by the arrangement I have made.
  Mr. Shepherd: Are we to assume from the Minister's answers that the Government are now convinced of the merits of private trading as against bulk buying?
  Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. I have said that, in certain specific cases, we feel that it is reasonable and right to revert from public to private purchase, but that does not prejudice the other cases where public purchase is retained.
  Mr. Erroll: Could the Minister say how many controls are still left on?
  Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister say whether any alternative job has been found for the willow controller?
  Following are the details:

  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  Arthur Leslie Noel Douglas Houghton, esquire, for the County of York, West Riding (Sowerby Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 107.

Division No. 85.]

AYES

13.45 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Field, Capt. W. J.

McLeavy, F.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

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

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Albu, A. H.

Follick, M.

Macpherson, T. (Rumford)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Foot, M. M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Alpass, J. H

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Gibbins, J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Attewell, H. C.

Gilzean, A

Mann, Mrs. J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Glanville, J. E (Consett)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Austin, H. Lewis

Goodrich, H. E.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Awbery, S. S.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Mothers, Rt. Hon. George

Ayles, W. H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Medland, H. M.

Ayrlon Gould, Mrs. B.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mellish, R. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Grey, C. F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Balfour, A.

Grierson, E.

Mikardo, Ian

Barstow, P. G.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mitchison, G. R

Barton, C.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Moody, A. S.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J

Morley, R.

Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Gunter, R. J.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Binns, J.

Guy, W. H.

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

Blackburn, A. R.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mort, D. L.

Blyton, W. R.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Moyle, A.

Boardman, H.

Hardman, D. R.

Murray, J. D.

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

Harrison., J.

Nally, W.

Bramall, E A.

Herbison, Miss M.

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

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hicks, G.

Oldfield, W. H.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hobson., C. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Holman, P.

Paget, R T.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Horabin, T. L.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Burke, W. A.

Houghton, A. L. N. D.

Parker, J

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

Hoy, J.

Parkin, B. T.

Byers, Frank

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Callaghan., James

Hughes, Hooter (Aberdeen, N.)

Pearson, A

Carmichael, James

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

Piratin, P.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Chater, D.

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

Popplewell, E.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Porter, E.(Warrington)

Cluse, W. S.

Janner, B.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Collick, P.

Jay, D. P. T.

Price, M. Philips

Collindridge, F.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Proctor, W. T.

Collins, V. J.

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

Pryde, D. J.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jenkins, R. H.

Randall, H. E.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Rankin, J.

Cook, T. F.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Cooper, G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Cove., W.G.

King, E. M.

Rhodes, H.

Cullen, Miss

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Richards, R.

Dagger, G.

Kinley, J.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Daines, P.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Kirkwood, RT. Hon. D

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lavers, S.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Leslie, J. R.

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

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

Lever, N. H.

Rogers. G. H. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Levy, B. W.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Uplon)

Royle, C.

Deer, G.

Lewis, J. (Balton)

Scollan, T.

Delargy, H. J.

Lipson, D. L.

Segal, Dr. S.

Debbie, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Logan, D. G.

Sharp, Granville

Driberg, T. E. N.

Longden, F.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Dye, S.

Lyme, A. W.

Shurmer, P.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

McAdam, W.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McGhee, H. G.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

McGovern, J.

Simmons, C. J.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mack, J. D.

Skeffington, A. M.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Skinnard, F. W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McKinlay, A. S.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Farthing, W. J.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Snow, J. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wigg, George

Selley, L. J.

Tiffany, S.

Wilkins, W. A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Timmons, J.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Soskiee, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Titterington, M. F.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Sparks, J. A.

Tolley, L.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Stamford, W.

Usborne, Henry

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Stross, Dr. B.

Viant, S. P.

Willis, E.

Stubbs, A. E.

Wadsworth, G.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Summerskil, Rt. Hon. Edith

Walker, G. H.

Woodburn, Rt. Han. A.

Swingler, S

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Woods, G. S.

Sylvester, G. O.

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Yates, V. F.

Symonds, A. L.

Warbey, W. N.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield')

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Head, Brig. A. H.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Baxter, A. B.

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

Raikes, H. V.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Birch, Nigel

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

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

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

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Boothby, R.

Keeling, E. H.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Bossom, A. C.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Savory, Prof. D. L

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

Law, At. Hon. R. K.

Scott, Lord W.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Carson, E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Challen, C.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Loyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smithers, Sir W.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Snadden, W. M.

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

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

Lyttetton, Rt. Hon. O.

Spence, H. R.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

MaoAndrew, Col. Sir C

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Crowder, Capt. John E.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

De la Bère, R.

McFarlane, C. S

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Ritchmond)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Thornton-Kemsley, G. N

Duthie, W. S.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

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

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

Erroll, F. J.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Marsden, Capt. A.

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

Medlicott, Brigadier F

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Glyn, Sir R

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)

Gridley, Sir A.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Grimston, R. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Odey, G. W.

Mr. Studholme and

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill marks the culmination of a process which has been going on for many years, and I think that the only way of presenting it to this House is to give hon. Members something of the historical background. They will find the story an interesting one, because it touches on a part of Commonwealth business which is rather specialised and is not often discussed in this House, but a part which is of vital importance at all times to the Commonwealth's well being. What this Bill deals with is the co-ordination of the nervous system of the whole Commonwealth, of its system of communication not only within itself, but with the rest of the world—a complex network of cables and wireless links which binds together the countries of the Commonwealth in all the continents, and at the same time provides them with essential communications with many foreign countries.
  The story divides itself into four phases. First of all there is a period of 30 years from 1872 onwards. During this time the Eastern Telegraph Company, the main predecessor of Cable and Wireless Limited, constructed its vast network of telegraph cables and acquired the networks of smaller British companies. It thus—with its associate companies—gained a virtual monopoly of external telegraph services throughout the Commonwealth—apart from Canada and the West Indies—and a predominant position in South America, too. It was this that gave us the lead in long-distance telegraph cables that we maintain today.
  The next phase is a development similar to that which took place in so many countries, including this one, on the inland side, too. From 1902 onwards, Governments of the Commonwealth themselves began to enter the field of transoceanic telegraphs., In that year a cable across the Pacific was constructed at the joint cost of the Governments of Great Britain. Canada, Australia and New
  226
  Zealand. This cable was operated by an administration known as the Pacific Cable Board under the joint ownership of the four Governments—an early and interesting example of Commonwealth collaboration and a telling forecast of the shape of things to come.
  In 1919, the United Kingdom Post Office began to operate two cables, known as the Imperial cables, across the Atlantic, a region which the Eastern Telegraph Company had never entered and which other British companies had, for the most part, left to the Americans. In 1926 and 1927, the Post Office began to operate short-wave wireless services with Australia, Canada, India and South Africa. The competition of the Pacific and the Imperial cables had not greatly stirred the Eastern Telegraph Company; but the success of the wireless services from their inception caused great consternation. The company's profits, and indeed its whole existence, seemed to be seriously menaced, and strong representations were made to the Government of the day. In consequence an Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference was held in 1928.
  The adoption of its recommendations inaugurated the third phase—a semipublic merger of all Commonwealth overseas communications. The services directly worked by Governments—the Pacific Cable Board, the Imperial Cables and the Beam Wireless—were all absorbed, and the operating combine took shape in the company later known as Cable and Wireless Limited. The Governments thus lost their direct control over a part of the Commonwealth system. But in return they gained an indirect control over the whole of the system operated by the combine.
  A standing advisory committee was set up on which the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India were represented. It included a representative of the Colonies and Protectorates, and was later strengthened by the addition of a representative of Southern Rhodesia. This committee had an advisory function only; its advice was limited to questions of policy, and its terms of reference excluded the Commonwealth companies which operated the distant ends of the beam wireless services. In 1944 it became the Commonwealth Communications Council and was later strengthened

  227
  by the addition of Lord Reith as an independent chairman—that is to say, a chairman not representing any one of the Commonwealth Governments.
  Meanwhile, the operating combine set up in 1928 unfortunately did not justify the high hopes with which it was launched. Ten years later it was necessary to relieve Cable and Wireless Limited, as it was then called, of its liability to pay rent for the United Kingdom Government wireless stations which it was operating. In return for transferring the ownership of these stations to the company, the United Kingdom Government was assigned 2,600,000 £1 shares in the undertaking, about one-twelfth of its total capital. These arrangements were given legislative sanction by the Imperial Telegraphs Act of 1938.
  Nevertheless, further difficulties arose, especially in meeting the changed conditions created by the war, and in 1944 the Commonwealth Communications Council, the advisory body which I have already mentioned, proposed that the system should be nationalised by establishing a series of public corporations in the United Kingdom and in the other Commonwealth countries concerned. Each corporation was to be owned by the local government, but linked with the remainder by an exchange of shareholding. Later in the same year, Lord Reith, at the request of the Coalition Government, undertook a special mission round the Commonwealth, and he, too, recommended nationalisation, but on a somewhat different basis. Under this, while private shareholding would be wholly abolished, each partner Government would acquire the assets of the Cable and Wireless Limited in its own territory, as well as the communication assets of its own local company.
  A conference of Commonwealth governments, therefore, took place in London in July, 1945, to discuss these proposals and other matters. The recommendations of this Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference were approved by all the participating governments. It accepted the suggestion made by Lord Reith for the nationalisation of the Commonwealth telecommunications system, and recommended that, when this process was sufficiently advanced, the Commonwealth Communications Council should be developed into a Commonwealth Tele-
  228
  communications Board. Since 1945, therefore, the function of the Commonwealth Communications Council has become more important, and it has been advising Commonwealth governments on all aspects of Commonwealth telecommunications, with a special reference to the co-ordination of cable with wireless services.
  So begins the fourth phase, the phase of government ownership. The foundation stone of the new Commonwealth partnership was laid in the United Kingdom when the Cable and Wireless Act was passed in 1946. This brought the remainder of the share capital of Cable and Wireless Limited into the ownership of the United Kingdom Government. Besides the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India have now already nationalised their external telecommunications services and together with Canada, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon are already members of the Commonwealth Communications Council. Pakistan sends an observer to the council meetings and is considering whether to become a member. The stage is thus now set for the final step in the process and all the Commonwealth governments which are members of the council desire that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board should now be set up. The detailed arrangements for this Board have, in fact, already been discussed by the partner governments, and were agreed upon on 11th May, 1948, in the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement. This agreement, which is the one mentioned in the Recitals to the Bill, has now been presented to Parliament as a Command Paper (7582).
  This brings us up to the present time and to the Bill itself. It is the Bill's primary aim to give effect to the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement of 1948 so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, and in particular to set up the representative central body of the partnership—the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. A further aim of the Bill is to transfer to the Post Office all the assets in this country of Cable and Wireless Limited except such assets as can conveniently be transferred without specific provision in this Bill. As regards the assets of Cable and Wireless Limited overseas, hon. Members will recall that when the proposed reorganisation of the company was announced in 1947, it was made clear

  229
  that Cable and Wireless Limited would remain as a company to operate its overseas services and no change in the operation of these services by the Government is contemplated or involved in the present Bill. Lastly the Bill aims at extending the Postmaster-General's power to make pooling arrangements with regard to the revenue from external telecommunications.
  Before I go on to discuss the individual Clauses of the Bill, I should like, with the House's permission, to say a little more about the proposal to make the Post Office the "National Body" within the United Kingdom, that is to transfer to it the assets and operating functions, in this country, of Cable and Wireless Limited. This proposal will already be known to the House from the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made in the House on 27th February, 1947. I should explain that when the Commonwealth governments agreed to acquire the assets of Cable and Wireless Limited and of the local companies within their respective territories, they naturally left open the question of the form in which each government should work them. It is clearly a matter in which uniformity is not essential. In fact, while South Africa and New Zealand have already allotted the new responsibility to their respective postal and telegraph departments, Australia and India have set up government-owned public bodies under general government control. Canada has not yet announced what form of public ownership she will adopt, although I understand that legislation will be introduced there during the current session.
  As regards the United Kingdom, I may perhaps quote the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who spoke for the Opposition during the Second Reading of the Cable and Wireless Act of 1946. He used the following words:
  "I hope if they [the Government] do buy the assets that they will manage them through the Post Office because I think it will be cheaper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 222.]
  We certainly are in agreement on this point. The Post Office in the past operated the Imperial cables and Beam wireless; at present it is operating telegraph and telephone services, both by wireless and cable, to a large number of European countries, and wireless tele-
  230
  phone services to every continent; and it is, in our view, obviously the body to handle the rest of the overseas telecommunications business in this country.
  So we come to the details of the Bill itself. It is, in the first place, distinguished by having a lengthy series of Recitals, rather a rarity. I think, in these days. The first four of these Recitals give the more recent historical background of which I have already spoken. The remainder introduce specific matters dealt with in the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill establishes the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, and thereby confirms the tradition of Commonwealth co-operation in telecommunications and puts it on a firmer basis than ever before. Part I of the First Schedule to the Bill, which is a copy of the second schedule of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement, sets out the constitution of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. Part II of the Second Schedule defines the term "national body" in such a way as to cover whatever form of organisation a particular partner government may set up within the terms of the agreement; in the United Kingdom, the national body will be the Post Office.
  The object of the second Clause is to keep the Commonwealth machinery adaptable to changing views and changing circumstances. It gives me power, subject to the rights of Parliament, to modify the First Schedule—that is, the organisation of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board—if and when such modification is desired by all the partner Governments. Clause 3 authorises me to pay this country's share of the Board's expenses. By Clause 4, subject to an intended agreement with Cable and Wireless Limited—whom, for the sake of brevity I will call "the company"—the company's land and assets in Great Britain, with a few exceptions which are principally used by establishments engaged in operations overseas, will vest in the Postmaster-General in April, 1950. Clause 5 provides the financial powers for the acquisition of the company's property in this country by the Post Office.
  Clauses 6, 7 and 8 deal very fully with the pension rights and compensation of the company's staff. This is an aspect of the Bill which looks rather involved, and perhaps I may explain it a little.

  231
  The total staff employed by the company is nearly 13,000, and of these nearly 5,000 are serving in this country. As I have reminded hon. Members, the company will remain responsible for the staff and services in the Colonies and in foreign countries, and it will, of course, for this purpose, have to retain in this country the necessary secretarial, accounting, inspectorial and other staff, but the large majority of its 5,000 employees in this country will be taken over by the Post Office, together with the work they are at present doing.
  The transfer of this staff does not, of itself, need to be specially provided for in the Bill; the Post Office can take them over and settle their terms of employment in consultation with their representatives. Statutory provision is required, however, for dealing with pension rights, and Clause 6 enables regulations to be made for this purpose. This Clause contains provisions on lines which are familiar to the House, although it is rather more detailed than usual because we have full information about the existing pension schemes of the company. These schemes are identified in subsection (8) of the Clause. The question of pensions is rather complicated, because we have to consider the interests not only of the staff who will be transferred to the Post Office, but also of staff who will remain with the company in this country, in the Colonies and in foreign countries, and of staff who will be transferred to the service of the Commonwealth National Bodies. The total number of staff in the various pension schemes is about 7,000, of whom some 3,750 are serving in this country.
  Clause 7 provides for the making of regulations for the payment of compensation to individuals who may be displaced or who, on transfer to the Civil Service, may suffer diminution of emoluments or pension rights. I think that this provision about payment of compensation is, perhaps, a matter more of academic than practical importance, because, as I have already said, the Post Office will be taking over the transferred United Kingdom staff along with the services which they are performing, and the possibility of any staff being displaced is rather remote. Clause 7, which again follows lines which hon. Members will have
  232
  already met in other Acts, is, therefore, more in the nature of a safeguard for the interests of the staff than anything else.
  I may mention that in connection with Clauses 6 and 7 we have consulted the Association of Scientific Workers and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the two trade unions representing the large majority of the staff of Cable and Wireless Limited. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking their representatives for their close co-operation with the Post Office. We have also consulted the staff associations representing the Post Office staff, who have an obvious interest in the question of integrating the transferred staff with the existing staff of the Post Office. A comparatively small number of the staff of Cable and Wireless Limited are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and the Electrical Trades Union, and we have been in consultation with representatives of these unions also.
  When we draft the regulations under Clauses 6 and 7 we shall invite the representatives of the unions concerned to further discussions. There will be a good many details to be settled because, as hon. Members know, these questions of pensions and compensation are complex and technical. I feel sure that these further discussions, if pursued in the same spirit of helpful co-operation as has marked those which have already taken place, will lead to mutual agreement and satisfaction. Clause 8 of the Bill is in common form, and provides for payment to referees who may be appointed for the purposes of Clauses 6 and 7 and for payment to persons giving evidence.
  Clause 9 gives me authority to introduce a new revenue pooling scheme with the company. This, as mentioned in the sixth and seventh Recitals, is actually an extension of the existing arrangement, and is designed to avoid harmful competition between the cable and wireless services of the United Kingdom by removing all financial inducement to the Post Office or the company to use one method rather than the other; it leaves the whole system to be administered as one unit in the best interests of telegraph users. In this connection I should explain that in order to secure the advantages of full integration of the United Kingdom services with all parts of the world—

  233
  both by telegraph and telephone—which the passage of the Bill into law will make possible—I propose to set up within the administrative department of the Post Office responsible for the external telecommunication services of this country, an External Telecommunications Board, on which the company will be fully represented. Co-ordination with the other countries of the Commonwealth will be ensured by the representation of the United Kingdom on the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board.
  I do not think that this Measure, which completes a process, or even, I may say an evolution, which has been going on for so many years, can be regarded in any sense as controversial. It gives effect to an agreement between Commonwealth countries which by its very nature must transcend party differences. As regards the part of it which regulates the future spheres of responsibility of the company and the Post Office, I do not think I need remind hon. Members that we are not here effecting the nationalisation of the industry. The company was nationalised in 1946 We are now dealing solely with questions of management and machinery, and I believe that the arrangements proposed within the framework of the agreement with the other Governments of the Commonwealth, will make for economy and efficiency.
  It is, after all, the Commonwealth aspect of this Bill which is of by far the greatest importance. I specially like the phrase "partner governments" which recurs in the Bill, and I would indeed claim that the history of wireless and cables is a fine example of continuous and close Commonwealth co-operation. By passing this Bill into law the House will be giving its sanction and recognition to a collaborative Commonwealth achievement; and it will be pointing the way, I feel confident, to similar achievements in other spheres in the future.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: It has become the custom in this House for Ministers to read their speeches when introducing Bills. I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on having done it rather better than one of his predecessors who, upon arriving at that Box on one occasion, read the first sentence of his brief, which was, "It is thought that the Minister might usefully
  234
  take this line." This Bill has been presented, as the Postmaster-General has said, to give effect to the agreement which has been entered into with the partner governments—like the Postmaster-General, I like that phrase—and that being the case, of course we shall not oppose it. At the same time, I have a number of comments to make and a number of questions to ask.
  My first question relates to Clause 4 and the transfer of a substantial portion of nationalised Cable and Wireless to the Post Office. If the House will look at the White Paper, command 7582. page 4, paragraph 5, they will see the means under which the assets are to be acquired, and they will see, as the Postmaster-General has already said, that the national body can be either a Government Department or a nationally owned corporation. There is no necessity, of course, in implementing this agreement to make the Post Office the national body in the United Kingdom. That, I think, is agreed. It is a choice, as we would say on this side, between two evils, and here I think that I must refer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has said, as he has already been quoted. The right hon. Gentleman quoted what my right hon. Friend said during the passage of the Cable and Wireless Bill, but he did not carry the quotation so far as I am going to carry it. It is true that my right hon. Friend said:
  "I hope if they do buy the assets that they will manage them through the Post Office because I think it will be cheaper."
  He went on to say:
  "I do not think public ownership is going to make the company more efficient, but I rather deprecate the setting up of more and more public boards, however agreeable they may be to Government supporters, and to others, through the directorships and so forth that are going round. …"
  He also said:
  "… if the Government have the courage of their convictions, and have talked themselves into the feeling that the Post Office is highly efficient, they had better follow it through, and let the Post Office take the whole thing over and make the usual loss which this type of State enterprise will certainly make." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 222.]
  The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my right hon. Friend in support of this recommendation, but I think that it is right that the House should be reminded

  235
  of the qualifications and the reasons which he adduced when he made that recommendation.
  I have one or two questions to ask on Clause 4. The first words are:
  "If an agreement is entered into between the Postmaster-General and the operating company for the purchase, on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty …"
  I should like to know the precise significance of that date. The word "if" here seems to me to postulate that agreement may not be reached between the Government and Cable and Wireless. I presume then that Cable and Wireless would remain the national body. As I have said, there are advantages and disadvantages in making the Post Office the national body, and it may well be that the balance of advantage lies in handing over the United Kingdom activities of nationalised Cable and Wireless to the Post Office, leaving, of course, the foreign activities, where extra-territorial rights may be involved, in the hands of nationalised Cable and Wireless.
  This brings up some questions concerning the staff, on which I want to say a word or two. The position will be that the staff of Cable and Wireless will, willy-nilly, become employees of the Post Office. Let us see what has happened to the staff since Cable and Wireless was nationalised. It is true that in the period between the nationalisation of Cable and Wireless and now the basic salaries have been increased, but the staff in the United Kingdom are in the aggregate receiving considerably less; moreover, nationalised Cable and Wireless has maintained its revenue, so the staff in fact, under the change from the old Cable and Wireless to the nationalised company, have become worse off.
  It appears to be the policy of nationalised Cable and Wireless to align pay and conditions to the General Post Office to the detriment of the staff. The pay and conditions under the old Cable and Wireless company were better than those of the Post Office. It may very well be awkward for a Postmaster-General in future, after the Post Office has taken over Cable and Wireless, to have men working side by side who may be on different rates of pay. I would say that the higher pay is a legacy of the private enterprise of the past, and it is mani-
  236
  festly unfair to transfer men from a private company to a similar job in a national company and in the process deprive them of emoluments or loss of pension rights.
  The line which I am taking is that the employees in the private company should not have their emoluments reduced. Let us see what the Bill does in this respect. On looking at Clause 6 it appears to me that the pension position is secure. On page 6, line 35, are the words:
  "… the regulations shall be so framed as to secure that persons having pension rights under the scheme are not placed in a worse position by reason of the amendment, repeal, revocation …"
  That position appears to be safeguarded. In subsection (4), if there is a dispute about the regulations as to whether they fulfil this provision, the dispute must be referred by the Postmaster-General to a referee or referees appointed in England with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, and in Scotland with the concurrence of the Lord President of the Court of Session. The point is that if there is a dispute the Postmaster-General has no option; he has to refer the matter to an entirely independent body and accept their findings and introduce new regulations.
  When we come to Clause 7 the position is not the same. Clause 7 gives no security to transferred persons that they shall not lose by the transfer. In order to make the position quite clear, I must quote from the Clause. I shall not quote every word, as it is rather long, but I do not think that I shall mislead the House if I quote certain words which give the sense of the Clause. Subsection (1) States:
  "The Postmaster-General shall have power, exercisable by statutory instrument … to make … regulations providing for the payment by him out of moneys provided by Parliament, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, of compensation to persons who, on such date before the passing of this Act as may be specified in the regulations, were employed whole time as officers or servants of the operating company being—

  (a) persons who suffer loss of employment. … or

  (b) persons who suffer diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of their entering the Civil Service of the State as the result of effect being given as aforesaid to that Clause; and any such regulations may make different provision. …

  The whole emphasis here is that these powers are purely permissive and not

  237
  mandatory on the Postmaster-General, and it is entirely left to his discretion as to whether he will give compensation or assessment for loss of emoluments or whether he will continue the emoluments at the level at which they were when the Post Office takes over the members of the staff. This Clause will certainly have to be looked at again. There is provision here also for an appeal of a sort, but only in this way the regulations for compensation may make provision for an appeal. By Clause 7 (2, b) it is merely left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General, in making regulations, to say whether he will give any rights of appeal or not. This Clause must be looked at again.
  I should like the Postmaster-General to tell us why he takes what amounts to an option to reduce, without compensation and without appeal, the emoluments of this staff whom he is to take over. I think that this Clause ought to be made mandatory. Parliament should see that these people who are being compulsorily taken over are not made worse off in respect of their conditions. As the Clause stands it is purely optional. The only inference one can draw is that this staff shall be brought down to the scales operating in the Post Office.
  I turn to Clause 1 and the First Schedule dealing with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board and its functions. The Board has a number of functions. In respect of many of them they can do no more than make recommendations. There is one point to which I wish to draw attention. The First Schedule in page 14, line 15, provides:
  "if the question to be decided is claimed by a member either before or at the meeting to be one of Governmental policy and unanimity cannot be obtained the Chairman shall refer the question to the Partner Governments together with his report and recommendations respecting the same and a decision on the question shall be suspended until the views of the Partner Governments have been ascertained."
  The point is that any member of the Board can veto a decision on a recommendation by saying that it is a matter of Government policy and must be referred to his Government. It is really a kind of veto similar to that which obtains at the United Nations. It seems to me that there might be considerable delay in settling important questions because of that pro-
  238
  vision. A question might be shelved almost sine die because of this provision. I would like some explanation from the Postmaser-General for the reason for this provision and how it is intended to work. It seems to me to be a procedure of veto which might very well lead to an indefinite hold up on an important question. That cannot be in the interests of the telecommunications system.
  Another specific matter about which I wish to inquire is the penny-a-word Press rate. Its introduction by Cable and Wireless was a bold and imaginative step. There is not the 'slightest doubt it has led to a big increase in the flow of public information throughout the Commonwealth. The penny-a-word Press rate is a matter of considerable concern. I ask the Postmaster-General whether he can give an assurance that this penny-a-word Press rate will be continued when the Post Office take over. I very much hope that he can give that assurance. It has been continued by the nationalised board, but there is some fear as to what its future may be under this new set up. It is in the general interests of Commonwealth communications and relationships and is a most important matter.
  I have been speaking so far about the recommendations of the Board. I now turn to one of the positive functions of the Board. In the First Schedule, in the paragraph dealing with functions, page 13, line 16, sub-paragraph (5) states that one of the functions of the Board is
  "To set up and administer a Central Fund for the receipt of the net revenues of the National Bodies."
  To obtain some details as to how this is to be administered we have again to turn to the White Paper. In passing, I do not see why the arrangements which are set out in the third schedule to the agreement are not included in the Schedule to the Bill.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): In the White Paper there is a protocol which refers to Clause 7 of the Third Schedule to the agreement, to which the hon. Member is now referring, which somewhat alters the position.
  Mr. Grimston: I do not think that it alters the position in regard to this agreement—that which will obtain in the working of the fund. If everyone has not got the agreement, it would be as well if I

  239
  read out the paragraph dealing with this account which the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board are to administer. I refer to paragraph 7, on page 12, which states:
  "The Board shall open an account for the National Body in the Central Fund.
  "The National Body shall pay to the Board an amount equal to the net revenues derived from the external communications services of the Government during any year and the Board shall credit the amount to the National Body's account. …
  "For the purposes of this sub-clause the net revenues derived from the external telecommunication services of the "—
  Mr. Hobson: I do not wish unduly to interrupt the hon. Member, but if he will refer to page 14 of the Agreement he will see that there is a Protocol which says that:
  "The Agreement does not commit the Partner Governments to the terms or principles of the financial arrangements embodied in Clause 7 of the Third Schedule. …"
  The position at the moment is fluid and has to be discussed.
  Mr. Grimston: Then it is all the more important for me to draw attention to the point to which I am coming. We shall at all events assume that this pro forma will form the basis of the discussions as to what the agreement is to be. It is stated in page 13, and in sub-paragraph (b): The moneys paid into the Fund in respect of any year shall be applied
  "(b) in meeting any deficiency in the net revenues derived from the external communication services of the United Kingdom during that year up to an amount not exceeding the cost to the United Kingdom National Body of cable maintenance and provision for cable renewals for that year."
  That appears to be some projected provision for a subvention for the upkeep of the cable network. The question which I wish to put is a little difficult. Perhaps I could frame it in this way. As the Postmaster-General said, with the advent of wireless it was feared that cables would lose money and would become uneconomic. Whether that is true today to the same extent I do not know. The development of the submarine repeater may and very' likely will mean that cables will have a fresh lease of life. But there was a time when it was thought that to keep up the cables would be an uneconomic proposition, and so far as
  240
  we know that is still the position. That being so, and the cables being a network of great strategic importance to the Commonwealth as a whole, as was certainly exemplified during the war—because messages can be kept more or less secret over a cable system but not over the wireless—it was felt not unreasonable that the members of the Commonwealth should bear some part of the loss in maintaining that cables network if the ordinary traffic did not support it.
  From this projected agreement it would seem that any provision for a subvention will be dependent upon the Postmaster-General making a loss. If he shows a loss on his combined operations on cables and wireless he may get some contribution from the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board for the upkeep of the cables; but so long as he makes ends meet he will get none. That is the position which appears to arise within the agreement set out in the third schedule to the White Paper. The Assistant Postmaster-General has, of course, drawn my attention to the protocol, and these agreements may not be embodied in quite this form. But when there are discussions on what form they are to take I hope that there will be an agreement to ensure that the cost of maintaining the cables is pooled throughout the Commonwealth, and that the United Kingdom shall receive some assistance towards the cost and shall not have to bear the whole cost of maintaining the strategic cables system of the Commonwealth.
  I hope that whoever replies will be able to satisfy us upon some of these points. I must say, in conclusion, that the Bill certainly gives effect to the agreement for the future set-up of the Commonwealth telecommunications service. We see in the process the disintegration of Cable and Wireless Limited. First of all we had the removal of the assets held by Cable and Wireless Limited in the Dominions, and we now see the removal of the assets left to them in the United Kingdom, and there are to be left, so to speak, suspended oceanic cables, the relay stations, and the stations in foreign territory. Its dismembered portions, and all the others, are to be overlooked by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, whose powers are very largely advisory.

  241
  I cannot think that this arrangement will be conducive to speedy decisions which may sometimes, and indeed perhaps often, be necessary in the interests of Commonwealth communications, particularly when we are faced with foreign competition. However, the matter has had a very long history which cannot be left out of account, and this new experiment represents the agreement of the partner governments in the light of that history. Let us hope that it will work, and that it will be conducive to the advance, maintenance and improvement of Commonwealth communications, which are the lifeblood of the Commonwealth.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Skinnard: I begin by echoing the concluding words of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), that this Bill, and similar Bills which have been or are to be introduced by some of the partner nations of the British Commonwealth, will fulfil what is known to be a long-felt want, that it will bring a closer co-ordination of telecommunications within the Commonwealth and promote a greater unity of design. Unlike the hon. Member for Westbury, I have not quite so much misgiving about the outcome of the discussions on the new Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, because, as has been shown by the Postmaster-General, the history of telecommunications between the various parts of the Commonwealth has been a very long one and has been of slow evolution, and on the whole there has been a remarkable feeling of partnership and amity in the development of the facilities.
  I shall not, therefore, do more than congratulate my right hon. Friend on his careful analysis of the present position, on his review of the history of Commonwealth telecommunications, and on his detailed presentation of the Bill. I should, however, like to draw attention to what I consider to be an injustice which might be righted during the passage of this Bill through this House, or in another place. The hon. Member for Westbury expressed concern that the present employees of Cable and Wireless, Limited, should not have their prospects or their emoluments lessened on entering the service of the Post Office. As a
  242
  matter of fact, I believe that their wishes and interests are being and have been largely met by negotiation. As we have seen, pension rights have been fairly closely safeguarded in one of the Clauses.
  I would remind the hon. Member for Westbury of an interjection on a previous occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) who suggested, in my opinion quite rightly, that he would not be content to see a state of affairs in which people doing comparable work, and possessing similar qualifications, have different rates of pay and different conditions of service. I am afraid that is likely to happen if something is not done in Committee about a very small class of people now in the Post Office service. After 1928, when the first Imperial Telegraphs Act was passed and beam wireless transferred, there was no further recruitment to the cable room of the Post Office until 1947, so that the promotion prospects of the men remaining in that department of the Post Office were reduced to almost nil. The number of men was not considerable, and in the course of time naturally tended to decrease still further; and I believe I am correct in saying that there are no more than 141 persons who are still affected by the decision taken on the transfer in 1929.
  I think the Postmaster-General will agree that, when the circular inviting applications to transfer to this particular branch of the Post Office service was issued, a good many of those who volunteered were of the highest calibre, attracted by the realisation that they would become associated in a new era in telegraphy, and because of their keenness some of them sacrificed seniority in other departments in order to begin in the new venture. I am informed that many of them in their spare time took courses of studies to gain qualifications suitable for their new work—languages and technical examinations, for example. That not only showed their keenness but added to their potential value to the Post Office.
  When beam wireless services were transferred, a promise was given by the then Postmaster-General that those who remained in the cable room, the members of the existing staff, would not suffer loss as a result. It all depends on the defini-

  243
  tion of "loss" whether we judge that they have suffered a loss or have been compensated. One of the first results of the change was the closing down of recruitment. There was a natural loss of the promotion prospects they might have enjoyed had the status quo been maintained.
  I submit that in spirit, if not in the letter, the pledge of the Postmaster-General of that time has not been honoured. A new scale of pay has been instituted for those members of the Cable and Wireless staff who were in the service of the company before 1939—I believe that is the date which was fixed. This scale of salaries has been offered, quite rightly, and I am not grumbling at it, because of a guarantee given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who preceded the present holder of that office that these people should not suffer loss of emolument on entering the service of the Post Office, or that compensation should be offered in case of displacement or the acceptance of a lesser post. I believe I am right in saying—and I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to confirm this—that the salaries of operators were then consolidated at £585 per annum. I should like to contrast that with the present maximum salary of the old employees who remained in the cable room after 1929. These operators, who in many cases have comparable experience and equivalent qualifications, have a maximum salary of only £421 12s. 6d.
  It may be said that this is a very small point, but very often it is the pain in a very small joint which makes the whole body feel pretty miserable. We do not want the justice that has been shown to the new staff who are being incorporated to act as an injustice in the case of these servants of the Post Office who have been left with very little prospects of promotion as a result of the changes that have been brought about. We do not want to leave them with a sense of frustration brought about by seeing people from outside being given a salary £160 above their own. I think I am correct in saying that only 141 are concerned, but I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is not some way, during the passage of this Bill, to avoid this injustice which would seem to reflect on the old and faithful servants of his Department.
  244
  Finally, on the Bill as a whole, I have no misgivings that it will be unworkable or that there will be unnecessary delays. I have seen in other fields affecting the Commonwealth how remarkably quickly "red tape" is forgotten and representatives of the Commonwealth get together to solve a problem. This is a fine example of legislative co-operation for a common objective to serve the Commonwealth as a whole. What we are doing today will be of great service not only to the people of this country but to our fellow citizens throughout the world.
  4.57 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: There is a point of detail I should like to raise with the Assistant Postmaster-General. It is in regard to the position of the officers and crews of the cable ships. That has not been mentioned today. It is obvious that under the old organisation the future of these men was more assured in some ways than probably it will be under the new organisation. Presumably the partner governments will have to provide cable ships competent to do the necessary work within their own regions. It was not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech what is to be the share of the partner governments in matters of this kind. These vessels operated throughout the world under the old organisation, and possibly they will continue to do so on some payment basis. We must think of these men, their homes and families, and it is most important that these servants of the old company should have their position made clear.
  There is another matter on which 1 hope to have some guidance, and that is the position of the new board in regard to the Colonies. Those who comprise the board are representing the Dominions, and it may be that the Government, in consultation with the Colonial Office, will take responsibility for communications with the Colonial Empire. We ought to have it made clear what will be the link, because it is of the utmost importance that the Colonies should be in this scheme in some shape or form. There is also the question of the position of the new Republic of Eire. There are important cable stations in that country which form an essential link and which are obviously not represented on the board. I had something to do with cable control at the beginning of the 1914–18 war. It was

  245
  very necessary to see that the safety of cable communications was assured, and the position of Valencia and similar places caused us considerable anxiety.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said just now, the arrival of wireless has speeded communications and cheapened rates, but in war-time it is not as useful as the cable. I now understand that the efforts of the Dollis Hill staff, who are always to the front in these matters, have enabled this submarine booster or repeater to increase cable traffic in a most astonishing manner. Therefore, I imagine that among the functions of the Telecommunications Board will be the preservation of the safety of the cables to ensure that they are not tapped by submarines. It is probably known to the House that experiments were recently made by a certain country to find out whether it is possible to make contact with the cable under the water at such points where the cables come near to land. Of course, it would be extremely embarrassing and annoying if one assumed that the cable communication was intact while all the time submarines had been tapping it beneath the surface of the water. I imagine that there are some means of finding out whether there is any such interference taking place, but this is a matter which should be considered with great care.
  I want to know whether it is proposed under this Bill to implement the recommendations of no fewer than four Cabinet Committees that were appointed. The first of these was in 1933 when the Colonial Secretary was Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister. The second Committee was when the late Mr. Thomas was Colonial Secretary; there was another report in July, 1936, bearing on this matter of linking up between wireless communication and the necessary transmitting stations, as well as the necessity to increase broadcasting throughout the Colonial Empire.
  The cost of the scheme has been mentioned, and it amounts to a very large sum of money—something between £15 million and £16 million. The cost would be lightened considerably if some of the recommendations of the 1936 Committee could be adopted and ordinary commercial traffic could be sent at special
  246
  rates through the network of the normal broadcasting transmitting stations, which at other times of the day would be engaged in broadcasting, either on the short waves or otherwise, to different parts of the Colonial Empire.
  I understand that a committee at the Colonial Office has been sitting through the last few weeks and that a report has been made to the Government on the future of broadcasting throughout the Colonial Empire. I do not think the House knows what are the recommendations of that committee, but if it involves, as we must assume it does, the erection of very high-powered transmitting stations, would it not be possible to reduce the cost of the necessary work for broadcasting by making some arrangement as was suggested in 1936, and between certain hours of the day utilising those transmitting stations for ordinary commercial purposes? I can find no mention of whether the Postmaster-General is now going to take over the whole of the broadcasting services for which Cable and Wireless are responsible in various individual Colonies. For instance, in Kenya, Cable and Wireless are responsible for local broadcasting. Will that be the responsibility of the Postmaster-General, or will it be done by the B.B.C., or who will do it? Surely there should be some mention in one of these documents of such functions as those. If the Postmaster-General could tell us what is to happen, the House would be interested.
  In addition, who will be responsible in the various defensive regions into which the world is now apparently divided, and when we have the various Dominions responsible for defence? As the right hon. Gentleman very rightly said, one of the main functions of the Board is the coordination of the appropriate authorities responsible for communications in matters of defence affecting the British Commonwealth or any part thereof. If there is no link between the Governments of the Colonies, how can that function be carried out? It is quite obvious that what affects communications, for instance in the African Colonies, is very germane to the interests of Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa. There must surely be some body set up that will make the necessary arrangements so that the two things can be brought into proper perspective.

  247
  I notice that the Postmaster-General in his opening speech said that he proposed to set up an External Communications Board. Is that Board, which is a sort of subsidiary of the main Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, going to deal with matters in the British Colonies? What will be its functions? I understood the Postmaster-General to say that he hoped to set up this body, but I did not quite gather what it was going to do, unless it was going to work with the Colonial Office and deal with these very important matters.
  I should like to say a few words about the transferred staff. The old Eastern Telegraphic company, which I remember in its very early days, used to have very admirable arrangements for the education of children of men serving in stations in rather isolated positions. I think the Postmaster-General realises that although air communication makes conditions better in this respect, the majority of men who serve in those outstations are necessarily young men. They want to get married, and in some cases it is quite impossible to provide married quarters owing to the climatic conditions. In other cases, with modern arrangements for refrigeration and so forth, much might be done to accommodate the families of such people who have to be in these outstations. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the arrangements which were made by the Eastern Telegraphic company to provide facilities such as the education of the children of their employees, and I trust that he will not permit service in these outstations to be extended over too long a period.
  With the transfer of so many men under the present scheme, I assume that they will come under the Superannuation Bill for civil servants which was discussed in this House last week. If so, on what terms are they covered? While I agree with hon. Members opposite and with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that it is a very bad thing to have two men doing the same work for varying rates of pay, there may be advantages if they come in under the new Superannuation Bill which was recently introduced to the House. If they do so, those terms ought to be clearly stated, because there is already a contri-
  248
  butory pensions scheme in Cable and Wireless, and those who have contributed to it should not suffer by being transferred.
  Mr. Scollan: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be some increase in remuneration for long service, even though two men are doing the same job?
  Sir R. Glyn: Yes, obviously that ought to be so. All I am saying is that while I think it is undesirable that two men should be doing the same job for different rates of pay where conditions are presumably the same, there are certain matters of compensation which should be taken into account if the pension which they will eventually obtain will be greatly to their advantage. It is of vital importance that the Postmaster-General should make sure that any contributions made to the Cable and Wireless pensions scheme should redound to the credit of these men who have already contributed. I do not think that that matter has been made clear. It is of great importance during a transition period that people who contributed to one pensions scheme should, if they wish, continue on those terms in another, and that the Government should guarantee what they should be paid. People should not be damnified as a result of being transferred to Government service. I trust the Bill will come into operation as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury that there are certain provisions in it which may lead to extreme delay. In communications anything which tends to delay is obviously bad for those communications.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: We have listened to such a pleasant flow of praise today that I do not wish to strike a discordant note, although I think the Postmaster-General has had a far from easy time. He treated the House to a historical survey of the development of telecommunications, which his Department no doubt thought would not cause much offence or concern in any part of the House. In that, their judgment was right, but I should like to take up one point, namely, that he did not pay sufficient tribute to the pioneers of telecommunications. Had it not been for the pioneers, the Eastern Telegraph Com-

  249
  pany, the position we occupy in this field today would not be ours. It was not due to any amalgamation of boards or Government organisations that we achieved supremacy in this field.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman also tell us about the early pioneers in the Post Office whose work on beam services made Cable and Wireless possible?
  Mr. Shepherd: I am not attempting to say that the Post Office have made no developments, because I think we all have great admiration for Post Office engineers. I am glad that the Postmaster-General has done something recently to improve their wages. On the whole, I believe that Post Office engineers are grossly underpaid. One finds that even the men who fit telephones take a great interest in their work, are anxious to do it properly, and have not had the deal from the Post Office that they ought to have had.
  I was dealing, however, with our supremacy in this field, which came about as a result of the activities of the early pioneers who have now been cast aside for a Government board. I have no admiration at all for a Government board; I do not think it will provide us with a more efficient service than we have had hitherto. Indeed, if the Minister had endeavoured to constitute a board more cumbersome than this telecommunications Board, I believe he would have had some difficulty. How the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) stretches his imagination to a point where he can visualise lightning decisions by this authority I do not know. How he visualises "red tape" being stripped away by this dynamic organisation passes the comprehension of my simple mind. I hope he is right, but I have grave misgivings. We have had a rather devastating experience of the control of this organisation by a public company. Already, we have seen the profits of Cable and Wireless halved in one year's operations. I know that excuses are put forward about increasing costs of maintenance and everything else—
  Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member will appreciate that the revenue of the company was swollen during the war because of the war.
  Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that although the profit went down by £1,750,000 the revenue went down by only £500,000. That casts a poor reflection on the activities of the company for 1947. I am not at all satisfied that the proposed change will be for the good, particularly as what we gain in terms of profit from this company is largely obtained from overseas. Revenue from overseas is very vital to this country at present; indeed, we sink or swim by our overseas revenue. So far as I can see, the intention of the proposed set-up is to reduce the amount of revenue we are likely to get from overseas. On purely economic grounds that cannot commend itself to anybody today.
  I sometimes wonder whether there has been any real enthusiasm for this idea among the Dominions, such as the Postmaster-General would have us believe. It is true that he sent round a couple of Marco Polos to induce people to subscribe to this idea, and I wonder whether the intervention of these gentlemen is not really responsible for the alleged enthusiasm for the scheme. Whether or not enthusiasm does exist, the net effect will be to reduce the revenue which will accrue to this country. That is not a very wise or proper choice.
  I want now to deal with the transfer of staff to the Post Office. Cable and Wireless employees have had a hectic time during the past year or so. They went from the wicked private enterprise operators to a public corporation, and are now being switched back to the Post Office. There is no doubt that these lightning changes have caused a great deal of misgiving. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for East Harrow, who said that he did not know what would happen. He should have no doubt at all. Those who were employed by Cable and Wireless will have their wages reduced when they join the Post Office. Nationalisation means lower wages for the workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members opposite want to deny that, they are at liberty to do so, but this has, in fact, happened. Is it not true that, calculating the bonus, the present servants of the nationalised company receive a lower rate of token remuneration than they did from the private company?
  Mr. Scollan: It is not true.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member does not know anything about it.
  Mr. Scollan: It is the hon. Member himself who does not know what he is talking about. Have not wages in the nationalised coalmines and railways increased?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman's lack of capacity to grasp a simple point always astounds me. I was talking about Cable and Wireless—
  Mr. Scollan: The hon. Gentleman said "nationalisation"
  Mr. Shepherd: I was saying that, calculating the bonus which was paid to employees by the private company, the employees are now receiving lower remuneration than they were when Cable and Wireless was privately owned. This is not a suggestion; it is a reality.
  Mr. Skinnard: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the high rates of pay deservedly earned by Cable and Wireless employees were not due to private enterprise so much as the fact that there was a heavy subsidy by the State?
  Mr. Shepherd: No, I would not agree at all. Although there was a State subsidy the high wages were due to the enterprise shown by the company. Now they are to be relegated to State employment. The Post Office is regarded as a means of revenue. If its classic function is to provide a bouncing baby for the Chancellor every year, then there is little chance of those employees getting the wages for which they are justified in asking. Therefore, I say that these men, when they ultimately come into the service of the Post Office, have the chance of a lower remuneration than ever before.
  My concern is fortified by the efforts which I made, quite abortively, during the passage of the Cable and Wireless Bill, to get from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury some guarantee on behalf of the employees. The right hon. Gentleman would give no guarantee that these men would not suffer loss as a consequence of the transfer. Anybody who reads Clause 7 will see that no undertaking is given to the men that they will suffer no loss, or that, suffering loss, they
  252
  will receive compensation. As far as I can see—and perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong—it is possible for the Postmaster-General to allow the Bill to go through and for the transfer of the staff to take place and to make no regulations at all concerning compensation. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be firm about this matter with the Postmaster-General. The Bill affords no safeguard for the employees. I hope that no one will allow the Bill to go forward in its present form until words are inserted to see that these people who suffer are compensated for their loss in this direction.
  I wish to conclude by saying that I view with very grave disquiet the tendency to put Cable and Wireless and tele-communications into one public corporation. It will mean that the ossification of the system has really begun. I do not think that any real good will come from it. It means that we shall lose overseas revenue and that the dynamic nature of our development in these communications will be materially lessened. It will mean that a great number of able employees of the company are to be put into a certain amount of jeopardy. I do not look upon the Bill as a progressive Measure at all, and I cannot share the enthusiasm for it of some hon. Members opposite.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I do not think hon. Members will expect me to follow the intricacies of the reactionary mind of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). I think it is pretty well known in this House now that the word "nationalisation" has become anathema to the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty with the Tory Party and with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they do not know exactly what they mean or where they stand on any of these matters. It is only a few weeks ago that the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was telling people in the country that it is not the intention of the Tory Party, if they are ever in office again, to withdraw nationalisation of these services. Therefore, the only thing that one can deduce is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are either dishonest, which I would not like to suggest, or that in their own minds

  253
  they are accepting nationalisation of the basic industries as having been a great success.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair, but I would point out that he is now behaving like a Socialist, rather than a proper Englishman. We have opposed practically every nationalisation Measure because we do not believe in them, but once they have been passed and nationalisation has been accomplished—I know this is political A.B.C. —we cannot sell the industries back to the owners again—[An HON. MEMBER:" You have done it before."] We have to find some method of running these unfortunate industries, but still under State ownership.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member's difficulty is that he is saying the same thing about the nationalised and socialised basic services as his hon. and right hon. Friends have been saying about the National Health Service. The Tory Party are all in favour of every one of these services in the country, but they have been opposing them persistently in this House throughout the passage of the Bills. I do not see how they can have it all ways, and it is about time they made up their minds. Having said that about the hon. Member for Bucklow, and his attitude towards nationalisation, I am not going to quarrel with everything that he said. From my knowledge there is a grain of truth in what he said, but unfortunately for him, he does not know exactly where the grain of truth lies. Before we come to the Committee stage, I suggest that he might like to make a few more inquiries. It may be that he will come pretty close to the point which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard).
  I do not propose to discuss the Bill in detail. I hope in another connection to be able to deal with some aspects of the matters in the Bill. By and large there is an element of fairness in the conditions which the Postmaster-General and the Government have conceded in the Bill, and in the main, there is a great deal of justice meted out to the old employees of the old Cable and Wireless. In so far as members of the staff who were in the service before 1939 are con-
  254
  cerned, the Bill represents a very fair measure of agreement. I should not like to say that if I had been in charge of the negotiations as a trade union negotiator I would have accepted the Bill as a good agreement, in so far as it concerns the people who have come into the service since 1939. That is a matter over which I have no control, and I have not a tremendous amount of direct interest in it. By and large, however, the agreement is pretty good.
  My main purpose is to deal briefly with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow. It is true that the maximum paid to the staff of the cable room in the Post Office is a good deal below the figure which is to be paid to the staff of Cable and Wireless transferred to the Post Office under the Bill and who were in Cable and Wireless before 1939. I will not deal at great length with the arguments used by my hon. Friend, except to say that he is fundamentally correct in the information which he gave to the House. I believe that this matter will be dealt with in another way.
  All I want to do now is to seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, or from the Assistant Postmaster-General, that there is nothing in the Bill to preclude the integration of the Post Office staffs in the new overseas telecommunications set-up, on the same terms as the staff who are now employed by Cable and Wireless; that there is nothing to prevent arbitration in regard to that particular matter; and that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent associations connected with the Post Office from taking arbitration proceedings. I do not wish to deal with the merits of the case, except to repeat that what my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow said in regard to the position of the Post Office staff in the cable room is correct in practically every detail. I should like to get an assurance that there is no prejudice in this Bill to any future action in connection with the staff in the cable room.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: shall not detain the House long but I should like to say that, looking back, we now see that the nationalisation of Cable and Wireless Limited was a

  255
  great mistake. It was a superbly organised cable company; it was the best in the world, and I remember the time when it achieved that extraordinary boon of one penny a word as a cable charge for the Press of the Empire. That was a thing that should have made the Government think twice before interfering with such management. I pay a great tribute to the work of Sir Edward Wilshaw, who fought against nationalisation from the beginning even though he knew he was fighting a losing battle. I only wish that other leaders of industry would take the brave outspoken attitude that he took. He paid for it. He was a man who had done much to build up that great company and he believed in his heart there was absolutely no reason at all for it to be taken over by the State. It was his view that it would eventually lose in efficiency and earning capacity. Perhaps we are seeing something of that result today.
  Cable and Wireless, as a private concern, was able to maintain cable stations in foreign countries without involving diplomatic disputes or, what is more embarrassing, creating trouble in the case of war, when a country's neutrality might be impinged upon. The Government have not made a case for the nationalisation of Cable and Wireless, but I am glad that they have maintained the position of the staff. [Interruption.] I know that this is not a nationalisation Bill, but I rather relied upon Mr. Deputy-Speaker permitting me to put these points.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think this Bill refers only to the Empire and puts into force an agreement which was already reached under the nationalisation Bill passed by this House.
  Mr. Baxter: I thought, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would call me to Order earlier, and I am grateful that you have allowed me to go so far.
  There is only one other point that I want to make and that is in regard to the difference in pay between the Cable and Wireless employees and those in the Post Office. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), which I thought was excellent, called the attention of Parliament to the fact that the Post Office
  256
  is being used as a maker of profits for the Treasury, as a means of revenue for the State. When there is a monopoly there are, of course, profits. Even under Government control, a concern cannot lose money if it keeps increasing its charges until it makes money. Nobody can lose money in those circumstances, but I suggest that the profits from the Post Office services should be given to encourage the employees.
  I believe that the pay of the technicians is too low. A deputation from these men met me and put their case to me. They showed me their weekly budget, and they compared their lot, taking their pensions and everything else into consideration, with employees similarly engaged under private enterprise. It is time that Government enterprises let their employees share in the fruits of their work, and the Post Office employees are feeling discouraged by the present conditions under which they work.
  Mr. Scollan: Is this a recent conversion?
  Mr. Baxter: On my part?
  Mr. Scollan: Yes.
  Mr. Baxter: I have always believed in high wages for hard work. As the Editor of the "Daily Express," I can state that we paid the highest wages in the country. Since this Bill is inevitable, I hope it works out well.
  5.35 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): We have had a very interesting discussion this afternoon, and I am pleased that the Opposition are not going to divide against the Measure. It is true to say that there have not been any major criticisms—just a few gentle animadversions—and that is due in no small measure to the fact that my right hon. Friend in his speech traced the history of overseas telecommunications in Great Britain and pointed out the many vicissitudes through which they passed during the inter-war years.
  It seems to be assumed, particularly by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), that Cable and Wireless had always been a prosperous concern. That is far from being the truth. In the early days when the old company was a monopoly, it was very prosperous.

  257
  Dividends were high and, let us say it in all fairness to the company, so were the wages. I only wish that every other private enterprise firm conducted its business on the same tenets. In 1926 and 1927, however, when the company was faced with competition, there was another story to tell, and immediately it got into rather serious difficulties.
  In 1928 there was an Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, and some public merger of Commonwealth overseas communications was made. In other words, Cable and Wireless was formed, and the Government lost direct control. In point of fact, the only control the Commonwealth or British Governments had was merely to say that certain cable routes could not be closed down. We come to 1938, which is 10 years after the setting up of Cable and Wireless. The company was relieved of the liability of paying rent for the wireless stations, and the Government were assigned 2,600,000 £1 shares, which was one-twelfth of the total capital.
  Mr. W. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman says the only control that the Government had was the power to prevent a cable route from being closed down. Has he told the House that a body was set up to ensure that the public interest was safeguarded in these matters?
  Mr. Hobson: The Imperial Communications Advisory Committee was set up, but it was purely an advisory committee. There is no point in what the hon. Member is trying to make, because that Committee had no power to make a recommendation or to see that it was implemented. It was a purely negative form, and the hon. Member for Bucklow has obviously not understood the history of telecommunications.
  Mr. Shepherd: I want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman and also to myself. This body never made any recommendation which Cable and Wireless refused to carry out.
  Mr. Hobson: Without notice I could not answer that question, but, so far as the general policy goes, what I have said is a statement of fact. The Advisory Committee's control was of a purely negative character, and in practice only amounted to the fact that the Govern-
  258
  ments could veto the closing down of a route.
  In 1944 the Commonwealth Communications Council recommended nationalisation, and in 1945 the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference recommended the acceptance of Lord Reith's proposals. Those are the proposals we are now discussing, namely, that the company remain and that their assets in Britain and the Dominions should be integrated in the national body of each country. As far as Great Britain is concerned, we have chosen to integrate them in the Post Office. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) quoted the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that it was a choice between two evils. That may be so, but the right hon. Member for Aldershot made his choice of one of the evils—that is how he saw it—and that evil was that the assets of Cable and Wireless in Britain should be integrated into the British Post Office. He did so for very sound and valid reasons, namely, that it would be more economical and more efficient. The right hon. Gentleman was logical in his conclusions, and I have no quarrel with him.
  There is a general assumption that there has never been any criticism against Cable and Wireless. That is wrong. There has been continual criticism. The Commonwealth countries wanted a larger share in the administration, and they were right in doing so. Why should there be this remote control from London, this Whitehall domination which the Opposition always want to remove? Further than that, the views of the company and the Commonwealth were not always in harmony. There was often a difference of viewpoint and they were not able to get their way for the same reasons that applied at home. There was, for instance, disagreement about wireless circuits between the Commonwealth and United States. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into consideration, this Measure seems to be a logical development and in keeping and in step with feeling in the Commonwealth generally.
  I was specifically asked by the hon. Member for Westbury whether agreement had been reached with the company. At present agreement has not been reached, but there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that agreement will not be reached,

  259
  The hon. Member referred to Clause 7. The position with regard to that is that the trade unions will be consulted in the preparation of the regulations. Clause 7 deals with redundancy, and we do not think that there will be any redundancy when the change-over takes place. Nevertheless, there the Clause is, and it is inserted largely at the wish of the trade unions which have been consulted. The other part of the Clause deals with staff entering the Civil Service. If their pension rates were greater, they will maintain them, and they will also maintain their emoluments, which seems to me to be fair, just and equitable.
  Mr. Grimston: The hon. Gentleman says that Clause 7 deals only with redundancy—
  Mr. Hobson: And pensions.
  Mr. Grimston: Then the Clause cannot even be operated to give compensation to those who are not redundant, but who may go to the Post Office at a lower rate of emoluments? Is that so? It is even worse than I thought.
  Mr. Hobson: That is another matter with which the Clause deals. What I have said in relation to Clause 7 is a perfectly true statement of fact. The hon. Gentleman dealt with what I thought was a very important point in regard to the agreement—whether there would be delay because of the power of veto. It is true that there is a power of veto, but we are dealing here with a family concern. We are dealing with partner governments in the Commonwealth, and with all due respect to the United Nations, it is not quite a fair comparison. There is an understanding among the British people and the people of the Commonwealth which will not result in stupidity and putting difficulties in the way. While that was a fair and legitimate point to make, in practice we need have no fear on that score.
  In regard to Press rates, I cannot give any guarantee or assurance as to what rate should be charged, but the requirements of the Press will be borne in mind. I would also point out that the agreement shows that it will be competent for the Telecommunications Board to set up advisory committees—
  Mr. McKinlay: What would be the rate for a Rita Hayworth story?
  Mr. Hobson: —and I have never known the Press backward in coming forward and asking for what they regard as their rights.
  Mr. Baxter: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the one penny a word Press rate really benefits the Empire as a whole, because it enables newspapers to carry more news of the Empire?
  Mr. Hobson: I appreciate the point to the full. I am a great believer in the Empire and a great supporter of the Commonwealth, and I hope that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) will see that his hon. Friends think likewise. However, obviously I cannot give guarantees about the price to be charged for telegrams, but we appreciate the point about news and want to see it disseminated.
  There was a rather awkward question about the pooling arrangements contained in article 7 of the third schedule of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement. I felt that I had to intervene in order to point out that there was a protocol and that nothing definite has been decided about what rates shall be charged. A scheme is indicated in the article. We must have faith here and must rely on the fact that our representatives will look after our interests. I cannot say more than that, but I want to emphasise again that so far as the arrangements set out in article 7 are concerned, they are not binding and they are held over by virtue of the protocol on the last page of the Agreement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) raised the question of rates of pay. That is a matter for the trade unions concerned in negotiation with the Post Office. However, there has been no worsening of the conditions of the staff taken over. There has been full consultation with all the trade unions on the matter. It may be that men at different rates of pay are working side by side, but that is not unusual when transfers take place. I had experience of that kind when many companies were amalgamated to form the London Passenger Transport Board. If my hon.

  261
  Friend wants the exact rates of pay, they can be made available to him, but I am unable to give them to him in reply to this discussion.
  Mr. Skinnard: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that I was putting a case about something rather more than mere rates of pay. My case concerned frustration and interference with prospects of promotion and career. I think I was justified in raising that in the Second Reading Debate, although I am quite aware that the whole question will probably have to be dealt with through trade union channels and arbitration. However, it was competent for me to point out that there is this difference in treatment.
  Mr. Hobson: That is perfectly true. What the intervention of the hon. Gentleman boils down to is that there are different rates of pay existing for two people working side by side and probably doing the same job. That is inevitable because of the form of the amalgamation we have decided to accept for Britain. On the question of promotion, that is hardly within the Bill, but I give my hon. Friend the assurance that in the Post Office the considerations of ability and seniority are always borne in mind and, as far as the transfer of staff is concerned, promotion will be decided on the merits of each case.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who made an interesting contribution, asked what would be the position with regard to the cable ships under the ownership of the company. The cable ships will remain with the company. Broadcasting in the Colonies is outside the scope of this Bill entirely, but it is true that Cable and Wireless broadcast in a few of the Colonies; I believe the hon. Gentleman mentioned Kenya. In that case they will continue as heretofore. His next point was with regard to Eire, which is not affected by the agreement. With regard to cables that are laid being tapped, I think that is in the realm of conjecture. There is little I can say in answer to that point except that the Post Office know what precautions must be taken, and those that can be taken will be taken by the engineers responsible. Concern was expressed about the quarters occupied by the servants of the company. That is the responsibility of the company, which
  262
  is an independent concern, but the hon. Member will notice that in the Second Schedule to the Bill the property "Meadowbank" which serves as a pied à terre for members of the staff home on leave, remains the property of the company.
  Now I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bucklow. I think the hon. Member thoroughly enjoyed himself, and I do not propose to answer all his points. He was concerned with reduced revenue that might accrue. He is undoubtedly wrong in his assumption. Because the company continues to carry out the work outside Britain, and merely because we are amalgamating the assets of Cable and Wireless inside Britain, with three exceptions, I do not think it is a safe assumption to make that revenue will decrease. With regard to, State enterprise there is a difference between the two sides of the House, but I submit that I have said sufficient to, point out to him that Cable and Wireless were very glad at one time to have the assistance of the State, and I do not think that his argument got us very far. It is perfectly true that there may be differential rates of wages, but interjections from hon. Members behind me support my view, when they mention industries that have been nationalised and quote the wage rates.
  I am not in a position this afternoon to give the assurances asked for by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams).
  Mr. W. R. Williams: This is important because, from the point of view of hon. Members of this House, it is obvious that many hon. Members have already expressed concern regarding the situation of the people in the Post Office. If my hon. Friend cannot give that assurance today, I should like him to make it perfectly clear to the House that he will try to give that assurance during the succeeding stages of this Bill. Otherwise some hon. Members may have to review their ideas in regard to the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. Hobson: That is a question for my right hon. Friend, but I have already said in answer to my hon. Friend that conditions of the staff are the responsibility of the trade unions concerned, who are perfectly free to enter into

  263
  negotiations with my right hon. Friend's Department on any occasion. Further, our relations with the many trade unions with which we have day to day contacts are satisfactory.
  Mr. Williams: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I notice that a certain amount of money will be given for the purposes of the Bill. What I and other hon. Members want to be quite certain about is that, later on, arbitration will not be denied because of the Money Resolution attached to the Bill.
  Mr. Hobson: I cannot imagine my right hon. Friend denying any trade union the right of arbitration. As far as the £4 million is concerned, that represents the money required for paying for the assets incorporated in the British Post Office.
  Mr. Shepherd Mr. Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Hobson: I have already given way—
  Mr. Shepherd: This is an important point. The Postmaster-General has done extraordinarily well, as far as the trade unions are concerned, in getting away with Clause 7, and I congratulate him. But why is the Clause only permissive? Why does it not say that there shall be these regulations which shall afford compensation to people who suffer loss as a consequence of the transfer of their employment?
  Mr. Hobson: Because there are special circumstances surrounding the people to whom that Clause refers. I attempted to follow the intervention of the hon. Member for Wood Green closely, but I did not see the point of it. The mere fact that he apologised to the Chair was proof that his remarks were wide of the subject under discussion.
  Finally, I want to say that this enabling Measure integrates into the British Post Office—
  Mr. Grimston: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to a conclusion, may I put two things to him? He said that Clause 7 dealt only with redundancy and I thought he would expand that later, because I said that that seemed to make it worse than ever if it only did that. The other point is, when fresh agreements are reached under the protocol with regard
  264
  to matters arising in article 7 of the Third Schedule to the White Paper, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those agreements will be published?
  Mr. Hobson: Those agreements will be made known under the protocol. As far as Clause 7 is concerned, subsection (a) deals with redundancy should it arise, but as I have said, we are not expecting any redundancy. Subsection (1, b) deals with those people who would suffer a diminution of emoluments and they are there safeguarded. I hope I have cleared up that point.
  This Measure integrates into the British Post Office all the assets of Cable and Wireless Ltd. in Britain and their staff, while it leaves the company free, independent and unfettered to operate abroad. The staff conditions, pensions, rates of pay are safeguarded in every way. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board is formally established and legalised and the Bill, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, is the best way of dealing with the post-war management of overseas telecommunications in this country. Further, it is in conformity with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference expressed in the agreement of 11th May, 1948, a conference which was harmonious, workmanlike and practical; and, in my humble submission, that augurs well for future Commonwealth relations, not only in the realm of telecommunications but in other fields of joint enterprises.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I did not want to interrupt the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but he tried to tie up State ownership with financial assistance by the State. I presume he appreciates that there is a considerable difference between the two?
  Mr. Hobson: I appreciate it very much, and if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House all the time, he would have realised that the point he has just raised has been fully answered.
  Mr. F. Harris: On that point. I have been in the House as long as I could, and I have only missed 20 minutes.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:
  Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the sixth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House:
  Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:
  Committee to have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Wilfred Paling.]

COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS [MONEY]
Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to give effect to certain provisions of an agreement for promoting and co-ordinating the efficiency and development of the external telegraph services of the Commonwealth (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient—

(1) to—

(a) authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole four million pounds, as may be required by the Postmaster General for the purpose of making to Cable and Wireless Limited payments in consideration of the transfer to him of property owned by that Company;

(b) authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued and authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums so borrowed;

(c) provide for the payment of such terminable annuities out of moneys provided
266
by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund;

(2) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums payable by the Postmaster General by way of contribution towards the expenses of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board established under the Act;

(b) any sums payable by the Postmaster General by virtue of regulations made under the Act with respect to the payment of pensions, being sums payable—

(i) for making good a deficiency arising in a pension fund held for the purposes of a pension scheme established under or by virtue of the regulations or any of the existing pension schemes as defined by the Act, or for or towards preventing a deficiency from so arising;

(ii) by way of the making of contributions under any such pension scheme as aforesaid in respect of persons who enter the Civil Service of the State, being persons who have pension rights under any of the existing pension schemes as defined by the Act or persons other than as aforesaid who are or have been in the employment of Cable and Wireless Limited;

(iii) by way of supplementing pensions payable, by virtue of any such scheme as is mentioned in head (i) of this subparagraph, to or in respect of such persons;

(iv) by way of the making of payments to or in respect of any of such persons who had expectations of the accruer of pensions to or in respect of them in accordance with customary practices of their previous employers; and

any increase attributable to any such regulations as aforesaid in the sums payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, out of moneys provided by Parliament;

(c) any sums payable by the Postmaster-General by virtue of regulations made under the Act with respect to the payment of compensation to persons who, on such date before the passing of the Act as may be specified in the regulations, were employed whole-time as officers or servants (but not directors) of Cable and Wireless Limited, being—

(i) persons who suffer loss of employment in consequence of the giving of effect to Clause 5 of the said agreement by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; or

(ii) persons who suffer diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of their entering the Civil Service of the State as a result of effect's being given as aforesaid to that Clause; and

267

(d) tees and allowances to any referee or board of referees appointed under the Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service to decide questions relating to pension rights or compensation, and allowances to witnesses appearing before any such referee or board."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY] (No. 2)
Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable, out of moneys so provided, under subsection (5) of section sixteen of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, in respect of the remuneration of the members of, or of the expenses of, commissions or committees, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session which applies the said section sixteen to Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for England and Northern Ireland and for Scotland and Northern Ireland or enables committees of investigation to consist of a chairman and five members (over and above any additional members appointed when the committee are considering a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern Ireland)."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
6.3 p.m.
Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Are we not to have an explanation from the Government about this Financial Resolution? It is a very curious practice that a completely new Financial Resolution, embodying a point which is altogether new, should be submitted without the presence of a Minister from the Agricultural Department to explain what the Resolution means. Neither is there any representative of the Treasury present to explain its object. I am, therefore, in a rather awkward position. Reading the Resolution as it appears on the Order Paper, and without any explanation from the Minister, it is very difficult for us to appreciate exactly what it means. The Resolution refers to a lot of previous Acts of Parliament and particularly to Northern Ireland. Perhaps it would be
268
for the convenience of the Committee if I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who has just entered the Chamber—to explain the object of the Resolution, or perhaps the Committee may like me to try to give my views of its meaning and then ascertain whether my submission is correct.
I suggest that this new Resolution has become necessary because of some very loose and careless drafting by the Government. In the Second Reading Debate on the Agricultural Marketing Bill, on 19th January, the Minister, referring to the committee of investigation which is dealt with in that Measure, mentioned that:
"Many questions which the committee of investigation will have to consider will be similar to the questions dealt with by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 191.]
The Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, however, was not in existence when the original Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 were passed by the House of Commons. As I understand the new Resolution, it would not be possible under the Bill as it stands to add an additional member to the committee of investigation. The committee of investigation in the past has been, and no doubt in the future will be, very carefully balanced as to its membership. It has consisted of a legal chairman and four members a trade unionist, an accountant, an economist and a business man. I understand it is the intention of the Government to maintain that balance under the new Measure. Unfortunately, however, I am in some doubt about this. I am to some extent in the dark as to whether my supposition is correct.
If, since the passing of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, it is the wish of the Government to add an additional member to the committee of investigation, there requires to be a new financial resolution so that the additional member may be remunerated. I believe it is the practice of this investigation committee that remuneration for services is made usually by a daily fee. Without the new Resolution it would be impossible for that additional member, if appointed, to be paid his daily fee for his work on the committee of investigation.

269
It is a very curious position that I, on this side of the Committee, have, on behalf of the Government, to try to explain what the Resolution is about. Even if I am correct as far as I have gone, I am still very much in doubt about the object of the final words of the Resolution:
"(over and above any additional members appointed when the committee are considering a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern Ireland)."
Their meaning is extremely difficult to understand and I should be very greatful for an explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
6.9 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I must apologise to the Committee that I was not in my place when the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) rose to speak on the Resolution. I must apologise also for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is detained elsewhere, but I understand he will shortly be here to take part in the Debate should it proceed much further. So far as I understood what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I think that most of what he said is quite correct. What the Resolution does is to enable the remuneration and expenses of chairmen and other members of commissions and committees which may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to have their remuneration or expenses paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
As the Committee are aware, once money has gone into the Consolidated Fund it is quite impossible to get it out except by a Resolution of this House. That is why we have these Money Resolutions and why they are essential if there is any expectation whatever of moneys needed to meet any expenses which might arise under any Act of Parliament. Here, as the Committee know, under the Act contemplated by the Minister of Agriculture provision is made for committees to be set up and, possibly, from time to time for commissions of inquiry to be set up and so on. This Resolution puts any expenses or remuneration which may fall to be paid in order and permits it to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund.
The hon. and gallant Member asked me to explain the last two lines of the Resolution. I agree that on their face
270
they appear to be slightly redundant, but they are simply there for greater clarity and to make quite certain that should extra members be needed for committees which are considering any scheme applicable to Northern Ireland, or any parts thereof, any remuneration or expenses incurred by them, or on their behalf, should be met. I hope that with that explanation the hon. and gallant Member and the Committee will feel they can now permit us to have the Resolution without further Debate.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought the explanation of the Financial Resolution was much clearer when given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) than when given by the Financial Secretary. So far as I could understand the Financial Secretary's explanation, it appeared to omit any indication of the total sum likely to be involved. Could he give any indication, say to the nearest £1,000? Before passing from it we should have some idea of the sum in a similar manner to that provided in the Financial Memorandum of a Bill.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. McKie: I feel sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did his best, but I do not feel that we on this side of the Committee are very much more enlightened than before he spoke. In saying that, I do not speak with any disrespect for the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable admiration, but his explanation did not take us very far. I hope that he, or the Minister of Agriculture, will tell us a little more about the sums of money they have in view, because it is clearly laid down in the Resolution that the Government contemplate possible increases.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to try to ride off and talk of the difficulties associated with the Consolidated Fund Bill. If I may say so without offence, I am quite as well aware as the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulties connected with the Consolidated Fund Bill. We shall be discussing it tomorrow and perhaps because of that, he brought it in and thought that by using long words he might impress hon. Members behind him who are new to the ways of this House and thus be able to get away with it. Hon. Members on that side of the Committee have not

271
shown themselves to be very up-to-date, or careful custodians, or trustees, of the public purse in regard to this Financial Resolution.
I think we ought certainly to have a representative of the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench because in Scotland agricultural matters bulk much more in the body economic proportionate to the population than they do south of the Border. Yet, in the discussion so far, we have had no representative of the Scottish Office. It is true that the Lord Advocate looked in when the Debate was beginning and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) was talking, but he went out again. He did not think it worth his while to stay, although I think he might have done so. I know he is not particularly well versed in agricultural matters, but, seeing that there was no other representative of the Scottish Office present, he could have stayed.
I should be interested to know what sums may be involved in regard to Scotland and to have an outline of what it is proposed to do north of the Tweed. Unless the Minister of Agriculture has been better briefed than was the Financial Secretary when he attempted to answer questions from the Opposition Front Bench, we shall not be carried much further. I hope the Press will take notice of the fact that not one representative of His Majesty's Government concerned with Scottish affairs—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am here.
Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) interjects that he is here, but I do not think he has a special commission to represent His Majesty's Government in this Debate. From the line he has taken so often I should think he would be the last to represent the Government in regard to Scottish affairs. I am glad to see that the Lord Advocate has come back and, if the Minister of Agriculture cannot enlighten me, I hope he will be able to do so.
A point was made regarding Northern Ireland and the possibility of having more members to serve on commissions or committees there. I am the last to
272
wish to be antagonistic to Northern Ireland, which is so near to my constituency that I can look across the water and see it sometimes, but, if that is necessary to deal with agricultural matters in Northern Ireland, it is necessary in England, Wales and Scotland because the whole of Northern Ireland is only 5,000 square miles in extent. That point ought to be answered and I hope we shall be satisfied on it. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now arrived. I would much rather have an explanation from him than from the Lord Advocate on a topic such as this because, as I said earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not particularly well qualified to pontificate on agricultural problems. Now that the Secretary of State is present, if the Minister of Agriculture cannot satisfy us on Scottish matters, I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to do so.
6.19 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I think the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) said something about "pontificate." I am not quite sure what he meant by it but I think I can clarify his mind—
Mr. McKie: It was not a reference to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Williams: —fairly quickly, if that is a possibility at all. This Money Resolution is for a purpose well known to hon. Members who sat on the Committee dealing with the Agricultural Marketing Bill upstairs. I said on Second Reading that it was our intention, since the functions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission were almost identical with the duties of a committee of investigation, we should try to exchange a member so that they could pursue a common policy. The only point which has arisen is that in the past we have had a fairly balanced membership on a committee of investigation. There has been a legal chairman, a trade unionist, an accountant, an economist and a business man. Should it be the case that a member of the Restrictive Practices Commission does not fulfil one of those functions, then it would require an additional member, and that is the only object of this Money Resolution.

273
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked what is the likely cost. I should have thought that scarcely runs into millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands or hundreds. It is entirely contingent upon the number of occasions on which the Committee of Investigation are called upon to operate. There may be no occasion for the committee to be called in in the whole 12 months, in which case the cost would be nil. It may well be that the committee may be called in on one occasion, and the cost would be the daily fee fixed, after consultation with the Treasury, at the time of the appointment. The hon. and learned Member knows better than I can tell him what legal fees usually amount to. But in any case it is the cost of one person, assuming that he acts on a Committee of Investigation for the day or the number of days that the committee might be in session.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that that one person will not be either a lawyer, or a trade unionist, or an accountant, or an economist, or a business man—I think I have the order right—but it will be a person of another category; and that provision is already made for the categories he mentioned so far as their remuneration is concerned.
Mr. Williams: It may be a person with legal training, but it may not, and it is for that contingency that we are preparing.
Mr. Charles Williams: Before we leave this Money Resolution there are one or two things which ought to be pointed out. I wish to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). When we are dealing with these matters, and we have a great agricultural community such as Scotland, it is only right that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not only be present but that he should explain the position of Scotland, and whether or not Scotland is getting too much. It has been known in other cases that Scotland has had too much. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come here to play his part although it will be rather difficult for him to follow exactly what has happened after the—I will not say muddled, because that would be an underestimate—explanation we heard from the Financial Secretary just now.
274
When I heard the Minister of Agriculture quite coolly lecturing the hon. Member for Galloway about being clear I thought he was not being very wise. If there is one hon. Gentleman who invariably understands these things, because of his industry in looking them up, it is the hon. Member for Galloway. I thought his speech was crystal clear, both in its meaning and object. My object is to point out that this is another of these unfortunate Money Resolutions—and we have had a fair share of them—in connection with agriculture which mean an additional number of people paid by the Government, and forced to spend their time under their contract of employment, in burdening agriculturists with unnecessary enforcements.
The particular increase in this case seems to be on the unhappy North of Ireland. In this Resolution we have a part which states:
"(over and above any additional members appointed when the Committee are considering a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern Ireland)."
We ought to know—although I am not sure who is the appropriate Government official to tell us—why there should be this additional number required for Northern Ireland. Is there any complicated system to do with boundaries or anything of that sort? I cannot go into it. We have the officials and we want to know what they are doing. Is there any reason why there should be a large increase of officials in Northern Ireland? I think we are fair in asking what is the reason, because there cannot have been any great agricultural development there.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the hon. Member remember who used to rule very keenly on Money Resolutions?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think that possibly I do. My trouble in regard to Money Resolutions is that the first thing they do is to take money to pay officials, and I maintain that that is thoroughly wrong and bad. Up to this moment that has been my chief complaint against the Government regarding this Money Resolution.
The second point I have to make against the Government—and I do not say I shall be satisfied if I get no answer to the point I have just raised—is that the Financial Secretary—who has now left the Chamber—again gave us his usual

275
statement, that he could not possibly hope to know how much money will go in this Money 'Resolution. I realise that he does not know, but surely, after all the Money Resolutions we have had, he should be able by this time to find an official of the Treasury who could form some estimate of what these Resolutions are likely to cost. I see that this strikes a responsive note in the Secretary of State for Scotland and I feel sure that he must have some answer to these matters. But I do protest as strongly as possible against the ever-increasing number—
Mr. Follick: The Financial Secretary is now here.
Mr. Williams: I notice the right hon. Gentleman has come back and the hon. Member for Loughborough really need not try to instruct me on what I ought to say in my speeches. This is not the Debate on spelling in which he proved that he knew little about his own Bill, less than anyone I have heard presenting a Bill, and he is not in a position—
The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is really not entitled to indulge in these repeated personal animadversions. I must ask him to keep strictly to the point. He knows as well as anyone in the Committee that he ought to do so.
Mr. Williams: But I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Loughborough in a way which was very provocative, and I thought that I might be allowed to make some small and short answer. I should have finished by this time except for the interruptions.
I protest very strongly indeed against three main facts. First, that in these Money Resolutions the Government never try to make any proper estimate; in the second place, they are laying increased burdens on the community and in the third place, I think that this Money Resolution, apart from the burden of taxation, will add to the number of officials employed in this country. I still hope that we shall be vouchsafed an answer as to the position of Scotland, and also as to why we have this sudden increase in the amount needed for Northern Ireland.
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

CONSULAR CONVENTIONS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair.]

Clause 1. — (POWERS OF CONSULAR OFFICERS IN RELATION TO PROPERTY IN ENGLAND OF DECEASED PERSONS.)
6.30 p.m.
The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that the court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the making of a grant by virtue of this section during such period as the court considers appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case."
The Committee is aware of the background of this Bill. I do not propose to spend any time, unless I am so requested, in dealing with general points at this stage. The object of Clause 1 is to reflect Article XVIII of the Convention which we have signed with the United States of America. Under the Article which presumably would be embodied in any other convention of this type, a consular officer is entitled to obtain a grant of representation to the estate of a deceased person when the national of this consular officer would have been entitled to receive it if the national had been present or had been represented in the court. The Committee will remember that a number of hon. Gentlemen, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), raised a point here during the Debate on the Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington said that no provision was made with regard to the time at which the consular officer might make his application for the grant. In our submission, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General attempted to explain, we had addressed ourselves to this point in the original text. The idea behind Clause 1 of this Bill, and, of course, Article XVIII of the Convention, is that the consular officer only comes in as an administrator in the last resort, as it were. He does not act, nor is he empowered to act, where the interested national is represented in the ordinary way. He would only act in the circumstances to which I have already alluded. However, the hon. Member for East Islington and hon. Gentlemen opposite made the point that plainly an interval should be allowed to elapse before

277
the person normally entitled to apply for a grant should be superseded by the consular officer of his country.
On reflection, and in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friends, although as we say we think this point has always been inherent in the Clause, we thought the suggestion was reasonable and that we should try to meet it. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in page 1, line 16, at the end to insert
"but the court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the making of the grant for such time as it thinks necessary to enable the said national to be informed and to decide whether he desires to be represented otherwise than by the Consular officer."
We did not think it wise to try to define an exact period of, say, three, six or twelve months. We thought that the court itself would be the best judge. Therefore we propose to add the words of the Amendment I have moved. I hope that the Committee will consider that this is a wise way of addressing ourselves to the problem. I am told that the circumstances of cases might vary greatly. The court will be in possession of any facts which it thinks relevant. Therefore, the court could be trusted to see that if the consul appearing seemed to be at all hurrying the process, due provision should he made for the absent national. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Amendment is really designed to cover the same point as that dealt with in the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). The wording of the two Amendments is slightly different. The wording of the Amendment in my name I think more closely corresponds to the provision in the Convention to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I agree with him that probably the wording of his Amendment is better in that it seeks to place no limitation at all upon the circumstance to which the court may have regard. As I understand his Amendment, it will be open to the court to postpone making the grant if, for instance, the court is not satisfied that the national has any knowledge that the application is being made by the consular
278
officer and has not had any opportunity of expressing his consent or dissent.
We also welcome the fact that this addition will be made to Clause 1. As drafted, it was mandatory upon the court to make the grant provided that the preliminary conditions mentioned in the Clause were satisfied. In my opinion it is right that this provision should be added to Clause 1 and it would be the wrong way of doing it merely to insert a provision of this character in all the Conventions which may be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act. It may well be advisable to insert a similar provision in the Convention when it is agreed, but it is most desirable that it should be contained in the Bill which will apply to all the Conventions of which there may be a considerable number in the course of years. For those reasons, we welcome this Amendment. It improves the Bill. We sought to improve the Bill by our Amendment and I am glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman has met us more than half way.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Since the Minister of State has referred to a speech which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill, may I also say that I welcome the Amendment which has resulted from that discussion? I prefer the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman to that put down by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). The Minister of State said one thing which I do not think ought to pass without comment. It was with regard to the Convention. We are, of course, here only dealing with the Bill. It is contemplated, as I understand it, that there may be a small number of further conventions, but I do not think this House ought to assume, unless the Minister of State tells us so, that every convention with any other Government will necessarily take the same form or contain the same provisions as does this one with the United States.
We must have regard to the legislative provisions in the Bill, and it is important to observe that, if subsection (1) had been left unamended, there would have been a mandatory obligation on the court to make a grant without any of the expressions which at present are open to the Probate Court when dealing with all other

279
applications for a grant of letters of administration. If this Amendment had not been put forward, it would have been necessary to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in line 14, but I understand that the proviso which is the subject of this Amendment virtually transforms what would otherwise have been a mandatory injunction on the courts into a discretionary one. For that reason, I think it is very desirable and a great improvement in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert:
"(a) is entitled to payment or delivery of any money or property in respect of any interest in the estate of a deceased person or vesting in possession on the death of any person, or is entitled to payment of any money becoming due on the death of any person; or
(b) is a person to whom any money or property comprised in the estate of a deceased person may be paid or delivered in pursuance of any enactment, rule or regulation, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, authorising the payment or delivery of such money or property without representation to the estate of the deceased being granted."
This Amendment seeks to substitute for the two paragraphs of subsection (2) an alternative form of wording. No question of principle is involved and it is simply a matter of drafting. To indicate to the Committee what were the defects which we found in the original wording, may I say that the original draft of the first of these two paragraphs caused some doubt whether settled property passing upon the termination of a tenancy for life would be included in that paragraph, and we have altered the wording so as to include it. There was also doubt whether the first paragraph did or did not include the case where a foreign national was a creditor of the deceased person, and who might, in certain circumstances, be entitled to have the estate administered. It was desired to exclude that case, and the new wording quite clearly excludes it.
In regard to the new paragraph (b), it is a question of arrangement, subject to the introduction of a reference to rules and regulations, as under some Acts there is a power to direct payment by rule or regulation. Therefore, in order to intro-
280
duce a reference to that possibility we have slightly altered the orginal wording.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made In page 2, line 14, after "property," insert "in England."—[The Solicitor-General.]
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
"(3) A grant of administration made by virtue of this section may be made to the consular officer by his official title, and to his successors in office; and where a grant is so made, the office of administrator, and all the estate, rights, duties and liabilities of the administrator (including liabilities under the administration bond) shall be vested in and imposed on the person for the time being holding the office, and no fresh grant shall be required by reason only of the death or vacation of office of the person to whom the grant was made or in whom it is vested as aforesaid:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect any limitation contained in the grant, or any power of the court to revoke the grant."
This Amendment is designed to meet a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), who raised the question whether the grant of administration would be made to a consular officer personally as an individual, or whether it would be made to him as the holder of an office, and, further, whether it would devolve from time to time upon the holder of the office upon any change taking place in the holder of that office at any particular time. We recognise that it is desirable that the grant should devolve upon the holder of the office from time to time; in other words, that it should not terminate upon a change of office. Accordingly, we have introduced a new subsection which will make it perfectly clear that that is what is intended. It will be observed that there is a proviso that nothing in the subsection shall affect any limitation in the grant of the power of the court to revoke the grant. I hope the Committee will agree that this is the best way of meeting the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWERS OF CONSULAR OFFICERS IN RELATION TO PROPERTY IN SCOTLAND OF DECEASED PERSONS.)
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 3,

281
line 8, at the end, to insert "or his successors in office."
The purpose of this Amendment is to give effect in Clause 2 to the same principle which was incorporated in the last Amendment to Clause 1, which is to ensure that, where a consular officer is appointed as attorney in Scotland for a foreign national, if that consular officer were to demit office, his successor in office would fill the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made In line 10, to leave out "he were."—[The Lord Advocate.]
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and to insert:
"(a) is entitled to payment or delivery of any money or property in respect of any interest in the estate of a deceased person or is entitled to payment or delivery of any money or property becoming due on the death of any person; or
(b) is a person to whom any money or property comprised in the estate of a deceased person may be paid or delivered in pursuance of any enactment, rule or regulation whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, authorising the payment or delivery of such money or property without production of confirmation;"
The purpose of this Amendment is merely to put in similar language the terms of the Amendment already made in Clause 1, and to insert this counterpart into Clause 2, which affects Scotland. The reasons are exactly the same as those explained by my right hon. and learned Friend on the earlier Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made In page 3, line 25, after "property" insert "in Scotland."—[The Lord Advocate.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask the Lord Advocate two questions? Being entirely ignorant of the law of Scotland, I assume that it is unnecessary to have any additions to Clause 2 to correspond to the addition to Clause 1 which the Committee has just accepted. I should also like to ask the Lord Advocate why it is necessary in line 33 for the words "in Scotland" to occur. I should have thought that the proviso should have been made to provide that,
282
"no person shall be authorised or required by this subsection to pay or deliver any money or property to a consular officer if it is within his knowledge that any other person in the United Kingdom has been expressly authorised to receive that money or property on behalf of the said national."
I gather that the words "in Scotland" in line 33 have been put in to correspond with the words "in England" in line 20 on page 1, and, although it is only a matter of drafting, it seems to me that the exemption which it is contemplated should be given by this Clause should apply if, in fact, there has been any person in the United Kingdom who has been expressly authorised to receive the property or the money on behalf of the said national. It seems to me quite unnecessary, and, I would hope, an unintentional limitation, that a person who has been expressly authorised to. receive payment should actually have to live in Scotland. If the Lord Advocate agrees with that, then I hope that this matter will be reconsidered before the Bill passes its final stage.
The Lord Advocate: The reason why it was not necessary to incorporate in Clause 2 an Amendment specifying a time limit, such as was incorporated in Clause 1, is due to the fact that the whole procedure in Scotland is entirely different from that followed in England. As hon. Members will appreciate, in England a grant of representation is made to the consular officer. In Scotland, the foreign national will be appointed executor, and under the provisions of this Clause the consular officer will only be entitled to act as attorney for that purpose. In Scotland, if there is an application to be appointed as executor of an estate, there are certain priorities as to the people entitled to be confirmed as executor.
Accordingly, in the first instance, the court would consider an application by the consular officer, as the attorney, for the foreign national to be confirmed as executor. If the foreign national did not qualify to be confirmed by virtue of the fact that someone with a superior claim was entitled to be confirmed, then the question would not arise. If, on the other hand, the foreign national fell to be appointed because of his superior claim, then by virtue of the provisions of this Clause the foreign national would be appointed as the executor and the consular officer would only be acting as his

283
attorney. If the foreign national did not wish the consular officer to act as his attorney, he could withdraw the mandate which by statute is conferred on the consular officer, and, to that extent, he could remove the consular officer from the effective administration of the estate. For these reasons it was not deemed necessary to incorporate a similar provision in this Clause to that in the Amendment moved to Clause 1.
The second point raised by my hon. Friend was why there was restriction in the proviso to subsection (3) to the effect that it should only apply to any other person in 'Scotland who had been expressly authorised to receive that money or property on behalf of the foreign national. This is a self-contained Clause affecting Scotland. There is a similar provision in Clause 1 in relation to a person in England, and, in the first instance, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have raised this point in relation to Clause 1. The explanation is simply that Clause 1 deals with England and Clause 2 with Scotland. There is a provision in the appropriate part of each of the Clauses to the effect that the money will not be paid to the consular officer if, in the English case, there is another person authorised in England, and if, in the Scottish case, there is another person authorised in Scotland. We have dealt with the United Kingdom as far as England and Scotland are concerned by dealing with each in the respective parts of the Bill. That, of course, was necessary in the framework of the Bill because Scotland is made a separate country for the purposes of the Convention. That being so, it was necessary to include it in the Clause in this form. I am sorry that there are no Scottish Members present on the Opposition benches to hear this momentous declaration.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was obvious to anyone who read the Bill with comprehension that it made Scotland a different country for the purpose of the Convention, and I am sorry that the Lord Advocate made the sorry joke about Scottish Members on these benches not being present. The reason is that there was nothing contentious about that point, and, therefore, there was no reason
284
to raise the point with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman so adequately dealt.
Mr. McNeil: Perhaps I might be allowed to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was a Scottish hon. Member opposite who, because of the difficulties of the Bill, requested my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate during the Second Reading Debate to be present on this occasion.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(RESTRICTION OF POWERS OF ENTRY IN RELATION TO CONSULAR OFFICES.)
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "except," to "with," in line 3.
This Amendment, together with the next Amendment in line 4, at the end, to add:
"or except with the consent of the consular officer in charge of that office,"
deals with the right of entry into consular offices under certain circumstances. We wish to strengthen the terms of Clause 4 as at present drafted. It was quite clear from the Second Reading Debate that Clause 4 was not designed to deal with normal circumstances. Normally if entry is desired into consular premises, the permission of the consul concerned would be obtained as a matter of course and as a matter of courtesy. Clause 4 was inserted because it was necessary to deal with abnormal circumstances, and my hon. and learned Friend and I do not think that the powers conferred on the police and other authorities to enter consular offices are strong enough.
Let us suppose there was good reason to believe that the premises of a particular consulate of a foreign Power subscribing to this Convention were being used for an improper purpose, perhaps at a time of great international crisis. Under Clause 4, as at present drafted, if the consul were to object, no entry could be made into those premises unless the permission and authorisation of the Secretary of State were first obtained. In other words, the fact that the consul could object might cause a good deal of delay before entry into the premises could be made. The Foreign Office would have to be con-

285
sulted, the authorisation of a Secretary of State would have to be obtained, and many hours, and, perhaps in some cases, two or three days, might elapse before that cumbersome procedure could be completed. We think that if the circumstances are such that entry into a consulate is desirable, that entry should not be delayed merely because the consul in question objects, and that the only condition of entry should be that the Foreign Secretary himself considered it necessary. That should override any objection by the consul in question. Indeed, if the Foreign Secretary considers that entry is necessary, the consul's objections should not delay proceedings.
The only other point I wish to clear up, and which arises from a question I asked during the Second Reading Debate, is whether the term "consular officer," particularly with reference to this Clause, means the consular officer to whom the Exequator has been granted, or whether it could apply to a vice-consul who happens to be physically in charge of the consulate when the proper consul is away owing to leave or illness. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us a reply to that question, we shall be much obliged. I think he will consider that the Amendment strengthens the hands of the authorities to enter consular premises without undue delay in cases where there is a suspicion that those premises are being used improperly, and I hope, therefore, that will be accepted.
7.0 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: Having regard to the present form of the Bill, the Amendment raises quite a small point. What is making the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) anxious, as I understand his argument, is that he feels that in a time of abnormal international strain or something of the sort delay might be occasioned if it were necessary, in order to enter consular premises, in the first place to ask for the permission of the consular officer. I think I can assure him that his fears are groundless in that respect. What the Bill says, as at present drafted, is that if the consent is withheld or cannot be obtained, the consent of the Secretary of State must be obtained instead.
In practice that simply means this. Supposing it is desired in the circumstances to effect an entry, all that has to be done is for the telephone to be lifted
286
up, the consul to be rung up and asked for his permission. If he is there, he either gives permission or he refuses it. If he refuses it, the consent of the Secretary of State will be obtained and entry will be effected. If he is not there or cannot be contacted, then the words "cannot be obtained" in the Bill are satisfied. If you have rung him up, tried to contact him and cannot reach him, so that you cannot obtain consent, whether he would have given it or not, then the situation has emerged that his consent cannot be obtained within the meaning of the Clause.
Translating that into practical facts, it means that there would be only a very few minutes delay. If it were desired to enter consular premises, what would happen would be that you would first try to obtain the consent of the consular officer. You would ring him up, or call, or resort to any other means of contacting him that might be open to you. If you cannot obtain his consent, either because he refuses to give it or because you cannot contact him, a situation has arisen in which you must get the consent of the Secretary of State—it would be the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Secretary of State for Scotland, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary. The only delay that would be occasioned would be a few minutes.
The Amendment proposes simply that one should be able to go either to the consular officer for his consent or to the Secretary of State for his. There has to be a certain amount of delay in any case in getting the consent of the Secretary of State. The only change would be that it would not be necessary first to have to go through the formality of seeing whether the consent of the consular officer could be obtained. The hon. Member may say, "Why not accept the Amendment and the alternative form proposed in it if, in fact, the substance of the matter is practically the same?" The answer is that the form which we have chosen follows the wording of the Convention which we have entered into. If the hon. Member will kindly look at the Convention, which is Command 7642, he will see on page 7 that paragraph (4) of Article 8 provides that:
"A consular office shall not be entered by the police or other authorities of the territory, provided such office is devoted exclusively to consular business, except with the

287
consent of the consular officer or, if such consent cannot be obtained, pursuant to appropriate writ or process and with the consent of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
We are simply reproducing the form of wording adopted in the Convention which has given rise to the introduction of this Bill. That is why we feel it would be very difficult, when there is no difference in substance involved, for some reason entirely unexplained, to depart from the wording of the Convention and to adopt a new wording which seems to give two alternatives instead of prescribing the procedure which is prescribed in the Convention. That is the reason we think no real case has been made for the change which is proposed. Even if some case were made, it would be very difficult to depart from the wording of the Convention unless there were strong reasons for so doing. I hope I have satisfied the Committee that there are not strong reasons for so doing, which is putting it at its very highest.
Turning to the second point, the consular officer concerned would be the person who had been placed in charge and had had given to him the authority of the consular officer at the time. He would be the person de jure acting as the chargé of authority in respect of that consular office. The hon. Member asked whether, supposing the person in charge were not there at the time, it could be said that a clerk or someone of the sort were de facto acting in his place. It would be the person who had charge of the office conferred upon him for the time being—it might be the vice-consul—
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a difficulty might arise under Clause 4 if the absent consul were a British subject acting in an honorary capacity and the vice-consul, temporarily in charge, were a national of the country concerned.
The Solicitor-General: That is unlikely to happen. The case which the hon. Member mentions is not one which in practice is likely to arise. It is much more likely that we shall find the consular office in the charge of a citizen of the sending country with the subordinates being citizens of the receiving country. In the actual case, it would be the per-
288
son who at that time was the person who had had entrusted to him, by whatever was the appropriate procedure in the circumstances, the duty of supervising and managing the consular office. That would be the person whose consent one would have to receive in the event of the necessity arising for entering the office.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with the Amendment at some length and I should like to make a few observations on what he said. He said that it raises quite a small point. So far as the existing Convention is concerned, I would entirely agree, because I think it is extremely improbable that a provision of this kind would have to be used in relation to the present Convention. But, of course, this Bill is to provide what I might call an umbrella for making other Conventions in addition to the one already entered into; I think that is agreed.
I am not quite sure that I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that in all its aspects this is a small point. He has said that, of course, we can dispense with the consent of the consular officer in charge of the office if that consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. Withholding that consent must mean that the consular officer receives the request and refuses it. I would apprehend that it does not cover the case in which the consular officer says "You must give me half-an-hour in which to think what my answer would be" or anything of that sort, because if he delays giving his answer it could hardly be said in law that his consent had been withheld.
To turn to the other limb of the argument, I was rather astonished at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that it was sufficient, in order to come within the words "cannot be obtained," to ring up the consular office and not get a reply. I should have thought from the wording of this Clause that it was implied that before one regarded consent as unobtainable, one should make all reasonable efforts to obtain it. I should have thought that was encumbent upon us, if we were to satisfy the provisions of this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that if we ring up the consular office and find, in answer to our inquiry that we want to speak to the

289
consular officer, that he is out for the afternoon playing golf, we can act upon that and say that consent cannot be obtained; whereas if we ring him up at the golf course and find that he has got as far as the nineteenth hole, in that case the consent may be obtained. I really thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going a bit far when he said that all one had to do was to ring up on the telephone and that then, if one did not get a reply immediately, one could say as a matter of legal construction that the consent could not be obtained. I think that is going a bit too far in the interpretation of this provision, as in my view the wording would imply that one has to make reasonable efforts to obtain the consent.
I think that the wording of these Amendments would really improve the Bill. All that happens here is that one can follow the ordinary custom of making an application, but if the occasion warrants it, if there is an occasion when one really wants to use Clause 4, then one can obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter the premises without giving notice in advance to the consular officer. Under the Bill as it stands, one is bound to get into contact with the consular office before any entry is effected at all. That might—I say "might"— defeat the object of the entry. One does not know. However, I should have thought that no harm could possibly have followed and no difficulties have arisen if the wording had been in the first place in accordance with the wording of the Amendments. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he will consider this matter a little more, bearing in mind that this Clause does not apply at all when there is a United Kingdom national in charge of the consular office, I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire to press these Amendments tonight.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not wish to press the Amendments, but I ask the Solicitor-General to think again about this time-lag. His argument that if the consul's consent is withheld, all that the police authorities have to do is to ring up to get the permission of the Secretary of State is a little impracticable. What we are suggesting is that before the police approach the consul in question to seek permission to enter the consulate, they
290
should first take the precaution of obtaining in advance the permission of the Secretary of State to enter the consulate, lest the consul should object.
Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman just examine what really would happen if his argument were accurate. Suppose the chief constable in a certain town approached the consul and the consul refused to allow entry into his consular premises. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really suggesting that in a matter of a few moments the chief constable could get on the telephone to London, and go through all the business of getting the permission of one of the Secretaries of State named in the Bill, who might themselves be otherwise engaged at that particular moment, and that a few hours later the permission would be telephoned to that chief constable that he could force entry into that consulate? It really would be a much more complicated and a far longer procedure than that. So far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument rested on the matter of delay, I do not think he can have worked out how it would apply in practice. I want to emphasise that we are trying to deal with wholly abnormal circumstances, not with normal circumstances at all, and where we have abnormal circumstances we want power to act speedily, if the action is to be effective.
The Solicitor-General: In replying to the previous arguments addressed to the Committee, I was dealing with them legalistically because they were rather of that character themselves, but I think we ought to get back to a sense of reality in the matter. After all, we are dealing now with one Convention. We shall not enter into conventions with countries with which one cannot feel that there is a certain amount of cordiality and mutual trust. It has to be remembered that Clause 4 is the Clause which will relate to countries in respect of which there are reciprocal advantages granted. As I say, we have already this particular Convention, and it is upon that basis. After all, what is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious about? They feel that a situation may arise in which emergency conditions prevail and where we should have to act speedily. To assume that in circumstances of that sort the consular officer in charge of the con-

291
sular office would have gone off to play golf is most unrealistic, in the assumed circumstances here.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: But that is exactly what he would do if he wanted to withhold his consent.
The Solicitor-General: All right then. If he has gone off, and one cannot get his consent because he has absented himself to play golf when he ought to be in his place, one is par excellence within the words, that consent
"is withheld or cannot be obtained. …"
We cannot say that he is doing his duty if he has gone off to play golf when he ought to be in his consular office. If there were conditions of emergency, quite obviously one could either get permission from the consular officer or the permission would be refused, or he would have gone away to avoid being contacted; but one could then say his permission could not be obtained. If he wanted half an hour to think about it one would have to consider how urgent the case was. One has to make efforts to obtain his permission which are reasonable having regard to the nature and urgency of the occasion; and if the occasion were one which would not brook half an hour's delay, then one could perfectly properly say one could not obtain his permission, if he would not give it before half and hour had elapsed. So that really the two forms of wording come to very much the same thing, and they really do not make much difference; and that being so, in face of the Convention into which we have entered, it would be extremely difficult now, for some reason which really must appear, to a person who entered bona fide into this Convention, very difficult to understand, to depart from the terms we have used in the Convention.
These conventions will not be entered into lightly and without proper care and proper reflection of the general circumstances appertaining with regard to the country with which the Convention is entered into. If it should happen that an emergency did arise, it would be an easy matter of common sense to determine at a particular moment whether one could, in fact, say one could not obtain permission or that it had been withheld. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite
292
not to press these Amendments, which really will not effect any big change, and which would be very difficult to justify, having regard to the wording which has been used in the Convention that has been entered into.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply is very satisfactory, but in view of his explanation that we have already entered into a consular Convention with certain countries, and that to alter its terms may lead to misunderstanding, my hon. and learned Friend and I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert:
"(a) the expression enactment shall include an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland."
This is a drafting Amendment. It makes the Clause easier to read.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made In page 5, line 21, leave out from "constable," to the end of line 23.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

LANDS TRIBUNAL [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish new tribunals to determine in place of official arbitrators and others certain questions relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land and other matters and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of remuneration of members, officers and servants of any tribunal established by

293
the Act, of travelling and subsistence allowances of members and superannuation allowances of past members of any such tribunal, and of other expenses of any such tribunal (including payments to persons sitting as assessors); and

(b) of compensation to persons suffering loss of office or employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, which is attributable to the transfer of any jurisdiction to any such tribunal by or under the Act."

LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISDICTION OF LANDS TRIBUNAL.)
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
"(c) and any jurisdiction conferred upon the county court under section forty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1948."
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss this Amendment together with the one in Schedule 2, page 15, line 60, at the end to insert

"11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 26.

Local Government Act, 1948.

Section 49."

which is consequential upon it.
The object of the Amendment is to make the Lands Tribunal responsible for hearing rating appeals, and therefore, it raises a point of some general importance. I apologise to the learned Attorney-General and to the Committee for putting down this Amendment at such a late stage. I realise that as it was only put down yesterday afternoon there cannot have been enough time for its consideration. I have put it down by way of exploration, or at least of suggestion. I do not wish to be dogmatic in suggesting that this is the right way to deal with this matter. The Attorney-General, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said with regard to the Lands Tribunal:
"Its object is to strengthen and codify the statutory arrangements for settling disputes in connection with the valuation of land and to ensure that in all cases where some form of valuation under statute is required—for instance, on the compulsory acquisition of land, on the assessment of the development or existing use value of land, or in regard to the valuation
294
of land for the purposes of Estate Duty—there should be a single and consistent jurisdiction combining legal and technical valuation experience, with an appeal to the High Court …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1949 Vol. 462, c. 41.]
Under this Clause certain types of jurisdiction are dealt with. I shall not weary the Committee by going through them, but it seems to me that possibly there should be added to these jurisdictions the jurisdiction to deal with rating appeals. At the moment, by virtue of Section 49 of the Local Government Act, 1948, rating appeals have been transferred from the courts of quarter session to the county courts. I agree that on the whole the courts of quarter session were not particularly suitable tribunals for hearing rating appeals, but I am not at all sure that the county courts are any more suitable. To begin with, they are greatly over-burdened with work, at least in certain parts of the country, and I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect a county court judge, any more than a recorder or chairman of quarter sessions, to be an expert in matters of rating law.
I suggest that this tribunal would be very much better, subject to two provisos: I think that the hearing of rating appeals should be public, and the cost of such appeals should be kept on a comparatively reasonable scale. It seems that the only advantage of transferring rating appeals to the county courts was possibly to reduce the cost. That matter could be dealt with quite easily under the terms of this Bill. The advantage of enabling this Tribunal to deal with rating appeals appears to me to be not only the negative one, that the county court is not a particularly good court, but also that the powers under the Bill for the composition of the Tribunal and the powers taken for providing flexibility of procedure would seem more suitable for the purpose.
The objection may be made that it is transferring another matter to another tribunal. It would not be transferring it to a new ad hoc tribunal, but simply diverting into this chain of jurisdiction dealing with matters relating to valuation another matter which depends on valuation. I agree that the basis of valuation is rather different in rating matters from that in those matters already referred to this tribunal, but I should have thought that on the whole this tribunal is very well suited to deal with rating appeals. So

295
far as I understand the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, those relating to the hearing of appeals by county courts have not yet come into operation, so there would be no question of disturbing a jurisdiction already being exercised by the county courts.
Although I realise that it would be unreasonable to press this view on the Government at this stage of the Bill, nevertheless, I hope that they will consider it, because I think that it would be an improvement on the existing state of affairs if this Amendment were accepted and this jurisdiction were transferred to this Tribunal.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): This is an important and interesting Amendment, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) for the way in which he has moved it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, Section 49 of the Local Government Act, 1948, was intended to transfer rating appeals away from quarter sessions to which they had hitherto gone to the county courts. That provision has not yet come into operation, and so we have had no experience of how it would work in practice. I would not, however, like it to be thought that the transfer of this jurisdiction from quarter sessions to the county courts will result in the county courts generally becoming overburdened. These are busy courts, and courts which I think are of steadily increasing importance, but I do not think that the transfer of jurisdiction to them which the Local Government Act effected is one likely to result in their being overworked. That, however, is not a reason which I advance against the purpose of the Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
We have had little time to give thought to this proposal which is not one of complete simplicity. There are certain difficulties and complications in regard to it. It is certainly a proposal which, if I may say so, is worthy of careful study, and study which I should have to undertake in consultation with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the Minister of Health and probably with other Departments which may be concerned in these matters. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, it has not yet been possible
296
to complete that study: indeed, it has hardly yet been possible to commence it. But I do give the undertaking that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman felt inclined to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, the Government would give most careful consideration to the proposal it makes, and would be prepared to formulate a view upon it when the Bill gets to another place. I am afraid that I cannot, for manifest reasons, undertake to deal with it on Report. We shall require a little time to think it over, and while I cannot, of course, commit the Government in any way to the view they may eventually take about the matter, we shall give it the most careful consideration with a view to indicating in another place what our conclusion is.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: While my hon. and learned Friend considers the suggestion put before him by the Attorney-General, I should like to add a few words of commendation to the arguments so lucidly and eloquently put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. I was one of those who were fairly closely concerned with the passage through this House of the Local Government Act, and I think it is probably true to say that most of those concerned with that Measure as it went through this House were somewhat tepid in their support and acceptance of the transfer of the jurisdiction for hearing rating appeals from quarter sessions to the county court. It was not that hon. Members were particularly reluctant to see rating appeals transferred from quarter sessions; but there was, I think, a measure of doubt as to whether the county court could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered the ideal tribunal for dealing with rating appeals.
At that time, of course, it was not open to anybody to suggest the alternative now put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, since at that stage there was no Lands Tribunal. Although I fully appreciate that, as the Attorney-General has said, this matter requires investigation from various angles, it would appear at first blush that this tribunal has all the qualities which make it a proper tribunal for the hearing of rating appeals, and has, in particular, specialised and expert knowledge which it will be able to bring to bear upon them. Therefore, I think it right that the Com-

297
mittee should be appreciative of the action of my hon. and learned Friend in bringing forward this very helpful and constructive suggestion.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: First, 1 wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) for his support and for the arguments he has adduced on behalf of this Amendment. When moving the Amendment I said that I was not seeking to be dogmatic about it, and, if I may say so, I think it extremely reasonable that the Attorney-General should want some time -to made the necessary inquiries into the matter. I do not complain of the way in which he has received this Amendment. I thank him for his promise to look into the matter, and on the undertaking he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to one very important feature of this Clause. I do so because of what I consider to be the somewhat derogatory remarks passed this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee about the duties—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman knows that no remarks made in a Standing Committee can be referred to here until that Standing Committee has reported to the House.
Mr. Gallacher: Well, it is a matter that has been dealt with so often, when it is suggested that the Scottish Grand Committee is somehow subordinate to this House.
The Deputy-Chairman: The Scottish Grand Committee is a Standing Committee of this House, and none of its proceedings can be referred to until that particular Bill has been reported back to the House.
Mr. Gallacher: Perhaps I should not have mentioned what has happened today, but on previous occasions when the Scottish Grand Committee has met it has been said, time and time again, that because such-and-such a matter is concerned with important questions which have already been decided in this House, the Scottish Grand Committee is not the
298
place to discuss it or to make decisions. In this Clause we find a very important presentation of the relationship between the Scottish Grand Committee and this House, because subsection (1) refers to
"(a) a tribunal for Scotland, to be called 'the Lands Tribunal for Scotland'; and
(b) a tribunal for the remainder of the United Kingdom."
That is the correct relationship: Scotland, and then the remainder of the United Kingdom; and if Members of the Scottish Grand Committee, and particularly those responsible for the Government, will take note of that, we shall probably have a better opportunity of taking decisive action in the Scottish Grand Committee in determining what shall be done in this House.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND EXPENSES OF LANDS TRIBUNAL.)
The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, after "be" to insert:
"either a person who has held judicial office under the Crown (whether in the United Kingdom or not) or."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It would enable persons who had held judicial office to be appointed, although they might not have had the necessary number of years of professional qualification.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 24, leave out "Committee," and insert "Branch."—[The Attorney-General.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Gallacher: We have here another very important question to consider. Subsection (2) says:
"The President shall be a barrister-at-law of at least seven years' standing."
It is very noticeable how the legal fraternity pay so much attention to holding on to jobs. "Jobs for the boys" is a notable feature of the legal fraternity. It will be seen that the Lord Chancellor is responsible for appointing members of the tribunal. He will appoint so many barristers, after which he will appoint a number of people who understand the

299
job and what has to be done. Well, that is all right; we must give the unfortunate barristers an opportunity to live the same as others. But suppose the president cannot function, as may be the case for perhaps months, then under subsection (3) the Lord Chancellor can appoint any member of the tribunal to take over the president's functions.
Now, what is the qualification for doing that job? Is it that he has held office under the Crown? Is it that he is a barrister of at least seven years' standing? No. Under subsection (3) the only qualification is that he is a member of the tribunal. And of course, if the Lord Chancellor is sensible, when appointing a member of the tribunal to do this job he will appoint, not a barrister but a man who understands the business. He need only be a member of the tribunal to qualify to take over the job of the President; there is nothing in subsection (3) to suggest that he should be other than merely a member. Surely, if there is on the tribunal a barrister who does not understand the business and myself who does, then I am the man the Chancellor should choose. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that between now and Report, when he might decide to bring subsection (2) into harmony with subsection (3), leaving the position of president open, not necessarily to a barrister, but to someone really competent to deal with the subject upon which the tribunal is to act.
The Attorney-General: I will give consideration even more quickly than the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has asked. Indeed, I have already given consideration to it. Accordingly, I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result of that consideration. We had not the advantage of the hon. Member's presence during the Second Reading of this Bill, otherwise he would realise that one of the purposes of this Bill is to transfer the jurisdiction that has hitherto been vested in persons of lay experience to a tribunal which contains, among other members, those with legal qualifications, and to transfer it to that tribunal because these problems not infrequently involve difficult questions of law. That is the object of the Bill, and it is for that reason that the
300
president has to be a person of legal qualifications. When a decision has to be taken on legal matters, and that decision is subject to appeal to legal courts, a lawyer is usually appointed to take it and not a haberdasher.
The fact that the president is a lawyer does not mean that he will always preside at every case with which the tribunal has to deal. It may be that in particular cases it is a matter of valuation which does not involve any legal question at all, and in such a case the tribunal will probably be composed of a surveyor only. If the president is temporarily absent and the work of the tribunal has to be conducted while he is away, it is most likely, although the Bill does not bind my noble Friend in this matter, that another lawyer will be appointed to take his place so that he too may be able to give a decision. As the tribunal will very often have to deal with legal matters in respect of which an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, I adhere to my view that the proper person to preside is a lawyer.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PROCEDURE, APPEALS, COSTS AND FEES.)
7.45 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, to leave out from "be." to "the," in line 3, on page 7.
The effect of this Amendment will be to avoid a kind of four-tier hierarchy, that is, the possibility that a dispute in regard to these matters may go first to the tribunal and then to the High Court, and from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and eventually from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. I am afraid that I have on previous occasions commented critically and strongly upon the fact that in various fields of our law, of which the revenue law is a notorious example, the unfortunate litigant may have to go, or may have to be dragged, right through these various stages until he secures the certainty of a final judgment in the House of Lords.
I should certainly not like to be a party to increasing the number of cases where that result, which I think is wholly deplorable, arises. We have therefore put down this Amendment to ensure that

301
there shall be only three possible tiers in this particular judicial hierarchy. Appeals will go straight from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. That arrangement will serve both to indicate the high status which the tribunal is intended to possess, and will also avoid an undue multiplicity of litigation in these cases.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: We need not take up much time in discussing this big change that is being made. I think it is a desirable change. I think it is clear that there will be a right of appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords, a point to which I drew attention on Second Reading; but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in fact, that is so.
The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. The hon. and learned Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper which is intended to meet that point, but I think it will now be unnecessary. There will be an appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: As probably the only layman present at the moment, may I also say that I am grateful for this Amendment?
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord-Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, to leave out from the first "court," to the end of line 14.
The words proposed to be left out were originally incorporated to enable appeals from the Lands Tribunal to be heard by any three judges of the Court of Session. We had in contemplation the possibility of using the valuation appeal court as the appropriate court of appeal in this case. However, in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, it was considered that this would involve unnecessary machinery, as it would necessitate the setting up of special rules of court to deal with that particular type of case. Accordingly, we propose to leave out these words, the result being that these appeals will go to the Inner House of the Court of Session in the normal way and will be disposed of as normal appeals in the Inner House.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Walker-Smith: In the course of my speech on Second Reading, I asked whether the Attorney-General could elucidate the application, in subsection (4), of the words:
"is given on a review by way of appeal of the previous decision of another person."
The Attorney-General was good enough to say that he had the answer to my point, but that as it was a little involved it could perhaps be dealt with on the Committee stage. The Committee stage has now arrived, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his deferred explanation.
The Attorney-General: Oddly enough I have the answer, but I wonder whether the hon. Member really wants me to deal with it now or whether he would like a letter about it. It is involved and a bit technical. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we dealt with it on Report or by letter.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am in the hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My only point is that as it is a little involved and difficult it might be helpful for people hereafter if an explanation were recorded in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Attorney-General: The second half of the proviso deals with this case; that where the tribunal are reviewing the decision of another person, for instance an arbitrator, a Minister, the Central Land Board, or possibly the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that other person, if he is dissatisfied, can require a case to be stated. I think it is fairly simple after all.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could elucidate a little further the reference to the Central Land Board. That presumably will be in respect of the powers of the Lands Tribunal under the Town and Country Planning Act for arbitrations in respect of loss of development value in founding claims on the £300 million fund. Are there any other cases in which he contemplates that that position could arise? I am not aware of them myself, but there may be some.
The Attorney-General: I shall undertake to take further instructions on this question and to send the hon. Gentleman a catalogue of the possible cases which might arise under the proviso.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)
The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, to leave out from "by," to "of," in line 11, and to insert
"His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland."
This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has already adopted in regard to the Court of Appeal and relating to the Northern Ireland application.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made In page 11, line 13, leave out "that court," and insert
"the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland."—[The Attorney-General.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

TOURIST TRADE (AMERICANS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]
7.53 p.m.
Mr. Spearman: I am glad to have this opportunity of raising the question of how we can encourage Americans to come here and spend those dollars which we so urgently need. Tourism is already one of the most important dollar producers we have got. On this occasion I do not want to attack the Government but rather to point out certain things which I believe could be done and certain other things which we should avoid doing, and thus
304
bring about an expansion in the tourist trade. My American friends tell me that when their countrymen visit Great Britain and go back to the United States they are more likely to buy British goods than if they had not been here, so that an increase in tourism to this country from the United States may not only produce dollars directly but may favourably affect our export trade.
My second point—and I believe that in the very long run this may be even more important than the obtaining of dollars—concerns the good will that can be obtained by a great deal of visiting between this country and the United States. It may seem boastful for an Englishman to say this, but I believe that the more the Americans see of us and of our country, the more they like us and understand us. I can certainly say from the several visits which I have made to America, that I feel that the more I go there, the more I appreciate the qualities of that great country.
On the three visits which I have made since the end of the war to America I have been very impressed with the understanding of this country and the change of attitude which I found there when I have talked to wage earners of all sorts and kinds. Taxi drivers, bus conductors, postmen and so forth have said this sort of thing to me "Before the war we took no interest in Britain. It seemed about as remote to us as Iceland, but during the war we were stationed in England, or our fathers or sons or brothers were, and we now have an entirely different attitude to that country from which we and most of our people sprang. We look with great sympathy at the difficult times through which you are going and we are really concerned about you." I believe that has made a great difference, and for that reason, we should encourage as much as possible Americans of all sorts and kinds to come here, and as soon as we can possibly afford it, we should encourage our people to go there.
My next point is that I think perhaps we do not pay enough attention to encouraging people of the lower income groups to come here. We are very glad to have the very rich Americans, and to earn the many dollars that they spend, but even in that country there is a definite limit to the number of very rich people in these days of high taxation. If we are really

305
going to attract a large amount of dollars I am sure that we must get many more people with lower incomes to come here. I myself, for reasons which I have just given, would much rather see 10 people come here spending 1,000 dollars each, than one man spending 10,000 dollars. I believe that the majority of people of the lower income groups who come here are people who are called first or second generation Americans, and they come to visit relations over here whom they know or about whom their parents have told them. Only a minute fraction of those first and second generation Americans actually come here, so that I believe there is an enormous source that we could tap, if we were to do all we can to encourage them.
I should like to speak about the deterrents. First, let me refer to the Customs. In the "Wall Street Journal" of last week there is a letter from an American criticising our Customs officials in this country. I shall not quote that letter because I believe it is rather exaggerated, and I, for one, do not want to criticise our Customs officials whom I have always found very civil indeed. However, I do suggest that they could be instructed to take a rather easier line than they do at present. Could they not be told that any traveller might bring in all the things which he really needs for himself? May it not be perhaps that what we gain on duties on these articles, we shall much more than lose by the annoyance created? Might it not also be penny wise and pound foolish to continue with these very strict Customs regulations, however civilly they are carried out? At any rate, with regard to cigarettes, may I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we should ascertain what is the most generous allowance that any country permits to be taken in, and, that we should at least match that allowance?
Considerable irritation is caused to people who are anxious to come here and spend money when they have these difficulties which might be avoided. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could not influence the Ministers concerned to reduce to a great extent the formalities that are required, because all of us who travel know how irritating are these formalities, which seem so unnecessary. For instance, is it really necessary for Americans, when they get
306
here, to sign health forms saying where they have been every night of the week for 14 nights before? Could not the Foreign Secretary take a bold view and get rid of the whole passport system altogether? After all, we managed very well without it before 1914. I have no doubt that we should have undesirable people coming into the country, whom we might otherwise avoid, but, like every other country, we have a few undesirables anyway, and I am sure that the increase would not be very serious.
Next I come to the question of petrol. Here, again, I am thinking of people in the lower income groups. Rich people who want to buy a car, or hire one for £2 a day, can get all the petrol they require. But what about the less well off people who cannot afford to do that, but who borrow from friends? They cannot get petrol. Could not they be encouraged to come here and get the free use of petrol? Is it not possible to make an arrangement so that when they exchange dollars for sterling, they receive a book of vouchers which would entitle them to buy petrol up to the amount authorised?
Then there is the question of Purchase Tax, which I am sure is a great deterrent to Americans spending money here. The whole purpose of the tax is not to raise revenue, but to divert goods for export and to mop up purchasing power in this country. Are we not doing the reverse of that when we deliberately discourage Americans from buying here? I know that if they go through the very complicated process of having goods sent straight to their ship they do not have to pay the tax, but would it not be pos-possible to devise a simpler method to enable them to buy goods and use them here? After all, we want to encourage Americans to spend dollars. Could they not have a system of vouchers, such as I suggested for petrol, which would entitle them to get goods here without paying Purchase Tax? The retainer of a voucher would then regain the duty which he had paid. Another point I should like to press very much is the need for adequately publishing any changes in the various restrictions that are necessary and doing so in good time. I think I am right in saying that the last time such changes were published was in the middle of the tourist season, which was very inconvenient to tourists.

307
I should also like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the amount of advertising we do in America. When I was in Washington last I had the opportunity of talking to an official there who, I think, was most able to judge the situation. He said to me, "You do not seem to understand in your country quite what we mean by advertising. You would find that an expenditure of dollars on advertising would reap a rich reward." I am not an expert in this matter, and I do not know what we are spending and what is being done, but I never saw any advertising whatsoever in America at any time. There is great need to advertise travel to Great Britain. Cannot there be emphasised, for instance, the short time it takes to get here by air from America? I am not sure that it is generally realised in America that it is possible to have breakfast in Scot- land, lunch in Iceland and dinner in New York.
An incident which I think shows how close our countries are now was described to me by the then Premier of Ontario, who planned the emigration scheme by air from this country. He said that one of the emigrants was a man who was working at Harrods, in London, and that as Harrods were shorthanded he stayed at work in their store until the morning of the afternoon in which he flew to Canada. He was working at Harrods on the Saturday morning, and as the store which he was to join in Toronto were short-handed he started there on the following Monday morning. That illustrates how close are the two countries. I think that sort of thing might be brought out more forcibly in America than it is at present.
Among the many attractions for which Americans come here are our historical buildings, great museums and picture galleries. Could not more be done to open the galleries which have been either entirely or partly closed? Surely, we would like to do that for the edification of our own people. If, in so doing it, the small expenditure entailed should be amply replaced by a further gain in dollars, it would seem the obvious thing to do.
I have been speaking mainly of those things which perhaps deter Americans from coming here. Now I want to turn to two positive things. First, our hotels.
308
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that the reports we sometimes hear, that we do not want Americans to come here yet, because our hotels are not ready for them, are absolutely wrong. I want to destroy that idea. Members opposite may think that in my praise of our hotels I am perhaps prejudiced by the fact that I come from Scarborough, where they may have enjoyed our superlative hotels very recently. I do not, of course, claim that throughout the country we can quite attain the standard of the "Queen of watering places," but I have stayed in hotels in many parts of America and England and I can say without any doubt at all that, generally speaking, our hotels more than compare with those in America. Of course we have great shortages to deal with but, with all respect to the Americans and their great hospitality, I believe that the service we can give in our hotels goes a long way towards overcoming—indeed, more than makes up for —our shortcomings due to destruction caused by the war.
The difficulty about our hotels is not so much what we can offer, but that there are not enough of them. Command Paper 7572, setting out the long-term programme of the Government, says this about tourism, in paragraph 141:
"Tourism has acquired a greatly increased importance. It figures among those industries which can become relatively rapidly and at a comparatively small cost in capital investment, raw material, labour, etc., one of our major exporting trades and, moreover, one whose dollar content can be outstandingly high."
We all agree that we can secure dollars from tourism with minimum expenditure of material, but we cannot do it without any at all. Paragraph 147 of the White Paper says:
"The shortage of hotel accommodation caused partly by the war is being successfully tackled."
That is not quite in line in what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us only last week, when he said:
"Unless one is a favoured individual well known to the management, or unless one has booked a long time in advance it has been difficult to get a room."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2352.]
Bricks cannot be made without straw, and there must be a greater allocation to our hotels if we are to provide the accommodation which will earn dollars from tourism.

309
Cannot something be done to hasten derequisitioning of some of our great hotels by Government Departments? For instance, there is the Victoria Hotel, Northumberland Avenue, which is still not derequisitioned by the War Office and which would be very suitable for American tourists. I come back to my earlier point—that our hotels cater more for rich Americans. They are admirably accommodated in the "Queen Mary" when coming here by sea, and in the Savoy Hotel and other hotels of that description when they arrive. There is not in the cheaper hotels quite the sort of accommodation that they particularly like. What they really want I believe is the plumbing of the better hotels, with smaller accommodation and simpler services, at prices they can more easily afford. We cater for the more wealthy Americans, but I believe that we are not providing the sort of accommodation, either in amount or in quality that is wanted by the less well off group.
I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the advantages of arranging or encouraging the arrangement of inland touring. When I was in Washington talking to officials in the State Department I said: "I suppose Americans do not really want to go to the sea when they come to England because they can do that at home?" An official said in reply" That is not quite so. It is true that they want to spend some part of their three weeks at the sea, but they like seeing the country." I was more gratified than surprised when they said that Americans liked to spend a day or two in such places of historic interest as Scarborough and Whitby. I am sure that there are other such places, perhaps not quite comparable but admirable, throughout this country which would attract them also. That would mean organising motor tours. No hotel likes to welcome people for only two days, but if the visits were so organised as to produce a succession of two-day visits during a fortnight, it would give the hotels an opportunity of taking the Americans upon the best possible terms.
Finally, I come to the most difficult question of all, which is transport. There are admirable facilities for those who can afford it to come over in the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary," but there is not the sort of accommodation that is wanted in sufficient quantity by
310
the less wealthy people. I am told that the sort of figure that will attract an enormous number of Americans is about 300 dollars for the return ticket. They could do it for very nearly that amount on the tourist class on some of our ships, but it means sharing a cabin with other people. The Americans like privacy. Cannot the shipping lines be encouraged to produce small and simple cabins at a lower cost such as would satisfy this demand? What can be done to increase the facilities altogether? There is not nearly enough accommodation at the height of the season. It happens that the peak of the Atlantic season coincides with a particularly slack period in the shipping to South African and other parts of the Commonwealth. Would it be possible to switch over those Commonwealth lines to the Atlantic in the Summer season and the Atlantic liners to the Commonwealth in the Winter season? I do not put that suggestion forward with any confidence because I do not know enough about it. I am just asking whether it would be possible. Could excursions by air be arranged in a big way? Excursions are made at very cut rates to seaside resorts here; might it not be worth while to make excursions at cut rates to encourage Americans to come over here?
I do not pretend that the suggestions I make will solve these problems but I am sure that here is an enormous source of dollars, quite apart from the fact that it would be of enormous benefit for the friendship between the two countries to get people here. I ask the Minister to encourage all the people who are responsible to do what they can and to see whether he can co-ordinate the efforts of Government Departments in order to achieve a more comprehensive plan. If the Minister will accept it that these things ought to be done, then if there is a will to do them a way can be found. I believe that every one of us must do everything in his power to earn dollars. Only in that way can this country stand securely on its own legs and relieve the generous American taxpayer of the burden he has carried so long.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Mack: I am sure that everybody has enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who has presented his case in moderate

311
and reasonable terms. Properly organised, the visits he proposes would be a valuable asset to this country. We are doubly fortunate in having the Secretary for Overseas Trade with us on the Front Bench tonight. Everybody knows the indefatigable efforts he has made to establish good commercial relations between this country and all countries in the world. He has shown every desire to pool ideas from whichever quarter of the House they have come.
The great advantage of the encouragement which the hon. Member has advocated is that it would be a dollar earner. It is a commercial matter, and the Americans are a great commercial fraternity, but they also like value for money. We could give them good value by letting them see something of England about which they have heard so much. Many of us knew the American troops who were here in very large numbers during the war, and we admired the manner in which they conducted themselves. When one remembers that in a city of about 9½ million people many temptations are available to soldiers and other people who are separated from their homes and are in a different environment, one can say that the conduct of the American troops was exemplary and won the respect and admiration of the people on this side of the Atlantic. When the Americans went home they told their families of the welcome they had received. There is thus a propaganda value in such visits.
I have heard criticisms, and so have other hon. Members, about the lack in America of propaganda for Britain. The finest type of propaganda is not the printing of books about our institutions and about the country, but the fact that Americans come here, and talk with warmth and enthusiasm about us when they get home. If we encourage them we shall be encouraging something which is more important than mere financial gain. The good name of Britain will become more pronounced in America than it is at the present time. America is composed of 150 million people of various nationalities. Many of them are not as warmly inclined towards us as they would be if they knew more about us.
312
I have noticed, with pleasure, as other people have done, that the lights of London will go up again. It is joyous to think that after so many years, we shall be able to go to Piccadilly in the centre of London and see those magnificent illuminations. We want material things such as good hotels, but they still leave something to be desired of this country. It is not only the rich Americans who want to come over here but the people of lower incomes, the small-town American farmer and those who do valuable jobs in the remoter parts of America. Sometimes these people come to London for a couple of days, but then get "browned off" and go to Paris. Paris is a very beautiful city. It has something to show and the cafés are open. I agree that in the nature of lour climate, we cannot have open-air cafès and a Folies Bergères in our theatres. I understand that there is to be a replica of the Folies Bergères in Birmingham. I hope that will be to the advantage of Birmingham. It should pack the house. These things are attractions to the Americans when they are presented with great skill and a degree of art which excites their admiration.
We have to do something in London. London has some great buildings. I have been amazed when Americans have come here and have shown not merely an interest in this House but a remarkable knowledge of Parliamentary institutions. They have surprised me by telling me more about the House of Commons than is known by hon. Members after 20 years' membership. They have pointed out some monument or document which might otherwise have been unnoticed. I contrast that with the fact that this evening a distinguished business gentleman who happened to be coming to the House, told me that, although he was a Londoner who had lived practically all his life in London, he had never been inside the House of Commons. I thought what a striking contrast that was to the interest which the Americans show.
There are other things, too. We do not want to send them so quickly to Switzerland, Capri and the nice places on the Riviera we want them to see not only London but all of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and also Scarborough. It was very appropriate that that distin-

313
guished watering place should have special mention, particularly because its Member of Parliament thought fit to Introduce the subject and rightly took advantage of that fact.
The cultural ties which have bound our two nations, together are deep and revered. There are the ties of language. Efforts have been made on both sides of the Atlantic to alter the structure of our language and etymology I do not know whether any degree of success will be obtained in that but I know that the ties of language and more important even than that the ties of our way of life, are exceedingly valuable. What is better therefore than that the Americans should come and see our way of life in this country?
I therefore hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to make relaxations. There have been relaxations in the way of extra linen supplies for hotels and the granting of extra food in certain circumstances. The railway service, although far from what we believe it will be under this Government, is better than it was six months ago. I understand that the railways are giving circular tickets, first class and third class, at a relatively cheap rate to certain resorts and interesting places throughout the country to en, courage tours. We ought to do more on those lines. Never has a country shown a greater inferiority complex than Britain in regard to tourists. We have called ourselves a nation of shopkeepers and yet our windows are the worst dressed windows in the world.
We have more to give perhaps than any other country. We have more to show, and yet we do not know how to parade our wares in a perfectly honourable and proper way because we are so modest and unassuming, and, unlike the Americans, when in doubt we do not shout and shout, but we think that it is in the national tradition to be reserved. The days of reserve are over. People must let the world know where they stand today, and Britain can proudly claim to have something to show and value to give second to no other country in the world. While not decrying other countries—it would not be our policy or desire to do so—we can speak of our own.
Finally—perhaps this is not in one sense relevant but in the broadest sense it is relevant—at a time when the world
314
is confused with propaganda of one kind or another, and when there is great perturbation of soul and agony of mind, when one single incident might cause a conflagration, the consequences of which no man can possibly foretell, it is more than ever necessary for two countries like England and America, which have a common destiny and whose roots are to a large extent similar, to come closer together. There has always been a special place for Britain in the heart of all Americans. There is no one in Britain who would say an unkind word about America as a country. For it we have great admiration and respect. We may differ in some things, and I hope we will always express those differences as between friends.
There is no propaganda or understanding as good as that which comes by personal contact, and if the Secretary for Overseas Trade can give us tonight some guidance and help as to the way in which we can encourage Americans to come here in great numbers, it will be greatly appreciated. We do not want them to live in hotels as much as in the homes of the people—to come as the guests of the people and exchange visits with us. If my hon. Friend can help us in that direction, he will have done a great amount of good not only for this country, but for the peace of the world and certainly for the enlightenment of people on both sides of the Atlantic.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Lipson: I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has raised a very important topic this evening. We all want to welcome as many Americans as we can to this country. For good or ill, our fortunes today and for a very long time are bound to be associated with those of the United States. The more the citizens of one country can get to know and understand the citizens of the other, the better it will be, not only for the two countries, but for the peace of the world. In trying to persuade them to come we should also emphasise that we want them to come for their own sakes, though the dollar value of their visit is important. We want not only their money, though I agree that in our

315
present economic position the dollar factor is a very important one, but themselves.
Only now are we realising what a potential source of dollars can be gained by persuading people to come and enjoy their holidays in this country. We start with the advantage that today more Americans want to come to this country than ever before. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made the point that comparatively few Americans relative to the population of that great country have been to Britain, but a great many of them were here during the war. As Scarborough has been mentioned, I might say that during the war years a great many of them were stationed in Cheltenham. I noticed that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme did not suggest that the Americans should be asked to visit his constituency, which as very self-sacrificing on his part. Cheltenham was the headquarters of the American Supply Service during the war and we had a large number of Americans there. In fact, it almost appeared for something like two years more like an American than a British city.
Not only did those Americans form friendships but they formed still stronger bonds Many of them took home what were then called "American brides," but who were, in fact, for the greater part the very attractive Cheltenham girls. These people want to come back and bring the results of their marriages—the third generation—and their friends. We ought to do everything we can to make it easy for them to come, and make their stay in this country as comfortable and as happy as it can be. I believe that figures show that the number of Americans, who have intimated their intention to visit this country this year is greater than the number who have ever come here. Various attractions are being arranged to arouse their interest. We established in Cheltenham two years ago a festival of contemporary British music, and it has been a tremendous success. Already we have had applications from large numbers of Americans in regard to visiting the Festival in 1949.
I believe that we have great opportunities to persuade the Americans to come over here. We have a great deal in this country to show. I hope the Government will assist the efforts which a great
316
many local authorities like Cheltenham are making to attract American visitors. Anything they can do in co-operation with the local authorities will be welcomed by them, and, what is more, the Government will render a good service in the establishment of friendly relations between the United States and ourselves.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Janner: I should like to add my thanks to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) for raising this important matter this evening. I believe everybody in all parts of the House will give a warm welcome to the opportunity he has given to us to express views about this matter. It is right to endorse some of the remarks he has made by emphasising that throughout the length and breadth of this country there is a desire for closer relations between America and ourselves. One of the greatest opportunities of improving that relationship is by visits from Americans to this country and vice versa.
I do not want to take up much of the time of the House in speaking further on that aspect of the situation. The people of my constituency, Leicester, with its wonderful scenery and because of the historic places in or near it, would welcome additional tourists with open arms, and would be glad of the opportunity of making further contacts with. Americans and of showing them what Leicester has to show. It is also very important that we should attract to Leicester men and women who will take an interest, either directly or indirectly, in the industries of that city and of the surrounding districts. In spite of the very difficult time through which we are passing, we should do everything that we can to make it possible for a long-term policy to come into operation so that ultimately—and sooner rather than later —we should be able to get our wares sold in America on a very much larger scale. The products of this country are such that if they are only known and understood, they will be extensively used in the United States.
I should like to mention a few specific points on which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give us guidance. Already the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has referred to the question of Customs. I have visited

317
America on a number of occasions and there are some irritating features about the Customs position, which could be removed. For example, a person going on one of our big vessels is permitted to make a declaration on the boat itself with regard to dutiable goods. Why that cannot be final, I do not understand. Having made that declaration and the commodities having been examined, he is again, in the majority of cases, put to the inconvenience and trouble after he has landed of passing through a further Customs inquiry. That seems to me to be unnecessary. When a ship nears say, Southampton, the Customs officer on board should, as he frequently does, examine the articles in question and they should be set aside after examination. After that Customs officer has taken all necessary precautions, the passenger should be allowed to go immediately from the boat on to the train without having the exacerbating experience of going through the whole procedure again.
Then, again, it seems to me so niggardly to refuse to allow a visitor who cannot afford to buy a car here to use as much petrol as he would be allowed to use if he hired a car in another manner. He should be allowed to have petrol for use in a friend's car with whom he may be staying. I put a question in the House on this matter only a few days ago and gave a specific instance where a visitor was not allowed to have an allowance of petrol for that purpose. That seems to me to be a foolish way of dealing with the situation. I know the reason is that advantage might be taken of the petrol which is allowed, and some wrong use made of it, but I cannot understand what the difference of such possibilities is between using petrol in a hired car and using it in a friend's car. Surely the same abuse might arise in the one case as in the other?
It is these small matters which create irritations that prevent people from spending a longer time in our country, and even at the risk of some abuse it would be better for a matter of that sort to be dealt with in a reasonable way, instead of exaggerating the likelihood of abuses of such a nature. And, of course, it must look ridiculous elsewhere when an answer to a question is given in this House stating that in order to use the petrol a visitor must either bring his car
318
with him from abroad or buy one. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that that cannot leave a good impression upon those who come, or desire to come, to this country.
On another practical point, I had an experience in my own constituency of applying for a building licence to extend the accommodation in an hotel, and I had a lot of difficulty in getting permission for additional rooms to be constructed. Now Leicester is a highly congested town from the point of view of accommodation. That, of course, prevails in many other towns, but in this instance the idea was to add some additional accommodation to a certain hotel so that instead of the staff having to live away from the hotel, they could live in the additional accommodation and so reopen a portion of the hotel for further visitors. We need accommodation in Leicester, particularly for tourists who come to see our industries and are prepared to purchase in the city the excellent hosiery, boots, light engineering and other commodities the export of which is important for our trade. Yet it took months and months before it was realised that this was an important matter which ought to have been given immediate attention. Consequently, quite a number of people were prevented from coming there, either for pleasure or for business purposes, or for both.
I should like to touch on the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). The question of the parents of young English women who have married American ex-Service men being denied the opportunity of visits by their parents is one that is agitating the minds of a considerable number of people in this country. Those parents cannot get facilities for visiting their children in America. For example, they find that even if they were able to reach the shores of America, as they can purchase a ticket here to New York, or even to their destination, if they have to travel by road or by rail from New York to where that child is living, they cannot get any allowance of currency to enable them to buy food on the way. It may be asked why those parents do not fly there, but obviously the average person wishing to visit his or her child in America is not in a position to spend the extra money which a journey by air would entail.

319
Not only does this policy prevent parents from visiting their children; it has the disadvantage that as facilities are not made available whereby most parents can obtain permission to enable them to take money from this country, they would become dependent entirely upon their children if they were able to visit them in America during their stay there. The providing of such facilities would result in the preservation and extension of our good name. Other hon. Members, whose constituents have approached them on this point, as my constituents have approached me, know that in return for such facilities the relatives of the husbands of married daughters of English parentage would be induced to visit this country. The result would be a very much larger accretion of tourism to this country from America. I commend the Secretary for Overseas Trade to consult the Treasury on this very important point, affecting, as it does, thousands of people in this country. It is not a trivial matter; it is one of very great importance. It has to it a human side as well as the practical side to which I have referred. It would help in improving the possibilities of attracting people to this country in exchange for those who visit their relatives and the relatives of their sons-in-law in the United States.
Now a word about transport. I agree entirely with the suggestion made, I think, by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, that some arrangement must be made whereby facilities are provided for people in less fortunate circumstances than the rich who can afford to come to this country whatever may be the cost. Having been in contact with the shipping world for some years, I know very well the difficulties. Nevertheless, it is worth while considering the possibility of utilising shipping for this purpose, for I believe that the return which would be obtained for the space so allocated for working-clas and middle-class people to use those facilities would be extremely beneficial to this nation.
We want to encourage the best possible relationships between our two countries. We want the men and women of each country to get to know each other better. I speak again from experience when I say that some people whom we visit in America have somewhat peculiar views about us in this country. Many of those
320
views, however, are quickly dispelled by personal contact with people from these islands. Similar wrong views are held of Americans by men and women from this country before they visit America. Taking a proper view of this situation, it would be to our advantage and to America's advantage from the point of view of good understanding and relationships between the people themselves, secondly from the point of view of our financial position in regard to dollars, and thirdly from the point of view of creating a permanent relationship between the two countries, so that our commodities could be sold in America for the benefit of our industries in this country and of all concerned with them.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. John Henderson: So far hon. Members who have spoken tonight have dwelt largely on the appeal of England to American tourists and perhaps, as the only Member representing a Scottish constituency present, I may be permitted to put forward a plea for Scotland. We have had Scarborough and Cheltenham mentioned, and perhaps I might be permitted to talk about the wonders of the land of Scotland, Bonnie Scotland, the glory of the glens and hills, its wonderful record in history, its romance, poetry and beauty. But more especially I would bring before the attention of the Minister who will reply the possibility of bringing direct shipping from America to Clydeside. I understand that in the coming season, for tourists coming from America to Great Britain, they have condescended to have one ship as a gesture of their appreciation of the renown and craftsmanship of the Clyde. I suggest that that is simply belittling the whole concern. Clydeside was the gateway to every centre where fighting took place during the war and more than one ship is required in order to bring the enormous number of American tourists who are, we are told, coming to this country. Therefore I hope that when the plan is unfolded, Scotland will be given a very important place in it.
There is another matter which is tremendously important in regard to personal contacts. During the war we had an enormous number of American camps in Scotland but now Scotland has been depopulated of her best manhood and womanhood. When we go to the United

321
States of America we find in every great city what is known as a clan society. The MacDonalds, the MacTavish's, the MacPhersons and the MacGregors who went there years ago have carried on the traditions of the clans of Scotland. They have the national music of Scotland—some people do not call it music, but I call it the national music of Scotland—and they carry on the national traditions. They have their societies and the Scots in America have worthily maintained their relationship. I hope that some provision will be made whereby these clans may be enabled to come and spend thousands of pounds here.
Scotland has had a wonderful past. In the Lowlands there is a beautiful countryside known as the Scott country. Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, if not the most beautiful, and Clydeside has great engineering centres. The power and strength of Lanarkshire are recognised in America. At this late hour and in this thin House, I appeal to the Government that when making arrangements, which I hope will be adequate to the occasion, Scotland will not be lost sight of in the matter of attracting increased traffic from America.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Walker: I hope the outcome of this Debate will not send out the impression, especially to the American people, that we are solely after their dollars. Of course we want them very much indeed, Heaven knows, but I think we ought to put our Debate on a little higher level than merely saying that we want the Americans to come here because their dollars are more welcome than they are themselves. A great deal has been said tonight about various places which would be attractive to our American cousins. I do not know whether it is a question of the spider and the fly, but we are bound to make known in every conceivable way that here in this old country we have something very valuable, fascinating and delightful to offer to visitors from all parts of the world. As we are considering Americans especially let us endeavour to envisage some of the things which we can offer to them.
The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. John Henderson) has used the opportunity to advertise his own Scottish
322
country. I propose to follow his lead, and to advertise my own part of the world as being incomparable. The hon. Member may talk about the beauties of Scotland, and I do not doubt them for one moment. But when we talk about the beauties of the English Lake District we are speaking of something which is the pearl of them all. I do not represent Westmorland but I have lived in Westmorland all my life, in the grey old historic town of Kendal where Queen Catherine Parr was born and where there are many things of historic importance. My town of Kendal is described as the gateway to the Lakes and we keep that gateway open. It is the entrance to one of the most wonderful vistas that God has created in the world, and we wish every one to see it, especially the Americans.
When an American comes to this country and enters this district through my own native town, he might stop and go into the town hall. There he will see a remarkable display of Romney paintings which will appeal to him as being as beautiful as many of the things which have been mentioned tonight. One hon. Member mentioned music as something to attract the Americans. I lay claim tonight to the fact that I come from a town that initiated the musical festival in this country. We have held them for many years. Owing to the outbreak of war, we were obliged to dispense with our festival for a certain period, but nevertheless we are the originators of what is known in this country as the musical festival. We have provided the music of village choirs, which have been quite a feature in the springtime of the year and very much enjoyed by visitors to the town. I think the Americans would find there something of real interest to satisfy their musical feelings.
In the Lake District we can also provide some of the old fashioned sports that this country knows. Take, for example, the famous Grasmere sports which have been patronised by large American contingents. We have some of the finest hotels in the country which can give the American visitor everything he requires in the way of comfort and good food, and they are set amidst surroundings of natural beauty. No part of the country has provided so much inspiration for poetry as the English Lake District. Wordsworth, Southey, Coleridge and De

323
Quincey are among the distinguished writers associated with our region of the country, and the American visitor would revel and delight in "the land of poetry," as the Lake District has been called.
I do urge upon the Minister, in whatever he contemplates doing to attract American visitors here, not to forget the English Lake District. The song writer has described Killarney as the place where "angels fold their wings and rest." I could as faithfully describe our own English Lake District as the place where angels come to fold their wings and rest amid all its beauty and its grandeur, all the wonder of nature in mountain and lake. We provide places like Manchester with the purest water in the country. In the Lake District there is nothing dirty, nothing ugly, nothing to disturb the most sensitive nature. I was born in London, but I have lived practically all my life, since childhood, in this wonderfully beautiful part in the North of England, and I never tire of advertising it. I hope that we may send a message from this House tonight to the people of America to come to the Lake District, to come to see that beautiful part of this little old country of ours. I hope that people in America, reading what has been said here, will be attracted to come to England, particularly to the Lake District—not to places like Scarborough and Blackpool or even Scotland where there is all the fun of the fair—but to the English Lake District, to the beauties of nature that God has created to make men glad.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. Edgar Granville: This Debate initiated by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) gives hon. Members an opportunity not only of extolling the great historical virtues of the country and its beauty spots, but their own constituencies. Having listened to this Debate, I think that the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who is to reply to the Debate, could do worse than to send this very eloquent team of speakers to the hard currency areas to persuade the people there to visit our shores and the lovely places in our country. I suppose that, as the Secretary for Overseas Trade is to reply, the accent, as most hon. Members have observed, must again be on dollars and the earning of hard currencies. I agree
324
with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) that of course we shall welcome visitors from the United States for their own sakes, but we need not be nervous at all about seeking to attract them, or any visitors from hard currency areas, because this country is one of the finest tourist centres in the world, and we can offer tourists extremely good tourist value for money.
However, we have to be realistic about this, too. Americans and Canadians are very newspaper-minded. They read the advertisements in their own newspapers of the virtues of Bermuda, Miami, Florida and of other places. I think that we have to get more advertisements of the beauty spots of this country in the Press of the U.S.A. As well as being newspaper-minded, when it comes to making up his mind about where he is going to spend his holidays, the American is also film minded. I ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade—and I hasten to say that I have no interest at all in films—if it is not possible for us to make and to send to the screens of America some of those short historical or documentary films, as I believe they are called, of the great beauty spots of this country.
It may be that it is extremely difficult to get the U.S.A. to accept feature films from this country and to show them on their screens in considerable numbers, but I believe that there is a great opportunity to show the films of the beauty spots of Scotland, of Shakespeare's country, of Yorkshire, and the Lake District, if those films are short and well-made. I believe that there is a place for them in the average cinema programme of the picture theatres of the U.S.A., and I do not think that the pulling-power of short films of this sort to those who are looking for somewhere to spend their annual holidays can be over-emphasised.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like briefly to refer. Not only could we send films to be shown on the cinema screens, but television is becoming increasingly important, and I believe that a large number of films are being made in this country to be shown in the U.S.A. on the television. These will go not so much into the community centres for which the cinemas provide as into the homes the people of U.S.A. I hope that

325
the Government are recognising at an early stage the tremendous importance and pulling-power of the short historical film, well-produced and well-photographed, and also of the film which can be more particularly used as a dollar export to the U.S.A. and which can be shown on their television sets.
So far as I understand it, the tourist business is not just a catch-as-catch-can arrangement, but a vast organised business throughout the world. I ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade whether he is satisfied that the tourist agencies in this country have proper ties with the tourist agencies in the U.S.A. It is extremely important that the tie-up should be on a commercial basis because when the American would-be holiday maker is making inquiries and deciding between Miami and Manchester he goes into the tourist agency to discuss the possibilities and to hear of the attractiveness of the various places. It is, therefore, extremely important that the tourist agencies in the U.S.A. have a business tie-up with the tourist agencies in this country and are anxious to sell, so to speak, virtues of Britain as against those of other countries.
Reference has been made to excursions by air. I do not know what the British airlines are doing in that respect, but American companies are offering 30 day excursions to this country. That makes a tremendous appeal to the type of tourist who, from this country, put Switzerland on the map. It is not the people who fill the Ritz and the more luxurious hotels who make a tourist industry possible; it is the professional class, the people who are attracted by reduced terms of travel, by excursions by air and by sea.
Another point arises on the question of bookings. A great number of visitors from the United States wish to come here and to go on to the Continent. It is extremely important that we should encourage them to make their base in this country by leaving a certain amount of luggage here. To bring that about arrangements must be made for them to make their return bookings to the Continent, hotel reservations there, etc. There is tremendous competition in this respect. There is a tendency for United States visitors to go to Paris first and to make their bookings from there to this country. With a little care, advertising and the provision of one
326
or two facilities a large number of tourists would be encouraged to come to this country first and to let us arrange their return bookings to the Continent.
Reference has been made, as it always is made in Debates like this, to the importance of the smoothness of arrangements at the ports and airports. I have seen a good deal of the ports and airports of the world and on the whole the men who handle the difficult and delicate problems at our ports and airports are doing a good job of work. Their's is an extremely difficult job. Watch the "Queen Mary" or the "Queen Elizabeth" arrive at Southampton and see the enormous hive of activity which is released to get the passengers through the various forms of procedure, through the Customs, on to the train and brought safely to the terminus in London. It is an enormous undertaking, and on the whole those who are responsible for the work do it very well.
I do not know whether or not we can expedite the procedure, as has been suggested by many Members in Debates such as this and by Question and answer in the House. It will be worth doing if we can do it. Before the war consideration was given over and over again to whether it would be possible to carry out the Customs examination on the train. I do not know whether it is possible for Customs officers to go aboard the "Queen Mary" or the "Queen Elizabeth," that a declaration should be made there and the actual Customs formalities should be carried out on the train, as is the case on many Continental trains at all times of the year. I do not know whether that proposition has been looked at. It might be worth considering.
I do not know which Government set-up handles the question of the brochures which are being published in the United States, advertising quite deliberately and materialistically tourist centres in this country, but it must be remembered that when we are directing advertising to an advertisement-minded public in America such advertising must be of a very high standard. We must produce first-class brochures which give the American people all the information they want as well as provide all the illustrations which they require of the particular beauty spots in this country to which we wish to attract them.

327
The tourist industry in this country can be a great and growing industry which can attract people from the United States, Canada and the Argentine. The Government need someone with flair to handle this kind of thing. They need a Billy Butlin, so to speak. It needs somebody who will put the British tourist industry on the map in the United States; it needs the kind of technique which understands the art of selling tourism; and it would be well worth the Government's while to spend some money on getting a good professional man who understands this business to attract Americans to this country in even greater numbers and so build up a larger tourist industry to earn dollars.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I feel some diffidence in speaking on this subject, because being a Scotsman from the West Coast of Scotland I might feel that my loyalties were concerned to try to attract American tourists to the beauty spots of Scotland. On the other hand, I have the honour to represent in this House a West Country Division, so that I look at this question from a slightly different angle when considering the more dramatic beauty appeal. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that much of the discussion and consideration of how we are to encourage American tourists is based on a proposition which is completely and absolutely out-of-date. I believe too many people consider that the American, or what might be called the hard currency tourists are confined to a group of people who are very well off, who want to go and live in the most expensive hotels, who like flashy night clubs and restaurants, and so on—the sort of thing we have been trying to deal with in the Standing Committee which is now considering the Licensing Bill—that the really strong appeal to the tourists is the opportunity to be able to sit up till three o'clock in the morning drinking what they want to drink how they like to drink it. Now, I refute that thesis altogether; it is completely false and out-of date.
The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) said that the large majority of American tourists who come over here are not of the millionaire type, but come from the professional classes. With
328
great respect, I think he is wrong. I believe that the great appeal of this country is not merely to the professional classes of the hard currency countries, especially the United States, but to the weekly wage earner. That is a most remarkable thug, and unless we appreciate it we shah lose a magnet of very great power which attracts vast sections of the community in at least North America, and certainly a considerable section of the community in South America.
If we are to attract that type of tourist we must have some specific types of magnets. It is no use merely sending out the ordinary tourist agency blurb, write-up and pictures. If people have saved a number of dollars, or some other hard currency, in order to come to this country, they will not have an awful lot to spare, and their visit will probably be one of the biggest events in their lives. and in coming to England, and perhaps from there to those parts of Europe people are allowed to see, they want some live interest which they can attach to their own lives.
I am one of those fortunate people—or unfortunate people, depending on the point of view—who have travelled over a considerable part of the globe, and being, I hope, a comparatively normal human being I cannot help remembering that, when looking at different activities in other countries the real interest was in comparing what I saw there with what I knew in my own homeland. To see a farm in the Argentine, a great estancia, brings back a picture of a hill farm in Scotland, or a dairy farm of 50 acres in Somerset; to see a spinning mill some thousands of miles away from here, is to summon up a picture of something seen in Lancashire only a few weeks or a few days before. Much of the human and live interest of the class of tourist who can and should be attracted to this country lies in comparing what they know in their own land with what they find in this. I do not believe for one moment that the reputation of this country would suffer if we encouraged that type of comparison. On the contrary, I believe that it would be to our advantage.
I would suggest, therefore, that when we are thinking of encouraging foreign tourism, and particularly American

329
tourism, we should put out of our minds the appeal to the big money tourist and start to cater far more carefully for the requirements of the weekly wage earners and those who come from the professional classes. The appeal of the beauty spots, the big hotels, the night clubs and the glamour is nothing like of the same value as the appeal of the far wider field. It is open to us for the first time for many years to appeal to people who will come to see our national activities. If we are to follow that up we have to do something to tell people about our industries and our way of life.
I have seen a certain number of foreign tourists, particularly American tourists, in this country, and I find that they have a real interest in the way ordinary people live, in the same way as when I go abroad I do not want just to stay in a hotel but to see the people of my own walk of life and other walks of life. It is of great interest to do that and it is very instructive. It is possible to compare the different ways of living, the cost of living and the comforts of living with very great advantage to ourselves, and exactly the same thing applies to foreign tourists in this country. So many tourists with whom one speaks on a ship or in a train will say how much they wanted to see our people and how they lived, and to know something more about our country. That is the sort of thing that cannot be translated into pamphlets.
We have to arrange so that people can see different facets of our national life in the same way as we make arrangements for people to see our beauty spots. Surely it should be possible to set up some sort of intelligent organisation so that people in the country and the towns can be asked if they would like to come to this country to see our light engineering organisation, or how our agriculture is worked and how the people in the industry live in this country. It is very important that people should know this, because one of the greatest dangers is that people in the United States may think that we are battening on them and demanding more of their food without doing anything for ourselves in our own countryside. If they could see the intensive activity that is going on in every field, hill and glen they would go back with a different picture and say
330
that these people are working for themselves but need additional help to enable them to carry on. What tremendous value that sort of thing would be.
Let us take another example. I remember, as probably do some other Members, helping to entertain Parliamentary delegations from another country. One of those delegations was taken to see some of our public services. It happened that we were particularly disappointed in regard to the London Passenger Transport Board and the display of their ramifications. We were given a minor glimpse of a very minor part of their activities. In fact, the whole thing was done in an unimaginative way. It is only fair to say that notice given to them was particularly short. I am not encouraging the idea that His Majesty's Government should snow to all foreigners what a tremendous success or failure nationalisation has been, but the bulk of our visitors make use of public transport in their own countries, and it is of great interest to them to be shown and to study what we are doing here. It is equally important that we should show them the tremendous progress we have made in spite of all the difficulties we have to overcome, and the tremendous spirit of our people despite difficulties and shortages.
There is another example which I should like to quote. I have never seen anybody so inspired as another delegation with which I was concerned, which was given a most fascinating visit to the London docks, where they were taken on a cruise on the Port of London Authority's excellently appointed vessel. They were shown great hospitality, and they saw the docks in full activity, with vessels from every quarter of the globe, not only delivering their produce but being reloaded with the produce and exports of England. They were impressed beyond anything I have known in any body of foreign visitors to this country, and they talked of nothing else for hours afterwards. They were not only thoroughly impressed with the scenes of activity but with the sense of drama. That is of enormous national value to this country. That sort of thing need not be organised in the official yacht of the Port of London Authority, though I envy anybody who has the opportunity of sailing down the river in it, but it can be organised by

331
other means and with other water transport.
What great value it is to our national position if foreign visitors can be shown such activity, which is, after all, the final point of departure for the goods which have been manufactured by hundreds of thousands of hands in the different factories of this country. What effort has been made to invite people to join in such visits as that? In the United States there is to be found woefully little advertisement for that sort of thing, and yet there are thousands of people interested in our economic recovery. We cannot divorce the building up of American tourism in this country from the fact that we are in receipt of Marshall Aid. Anything that we can show in this country to the American tourist which will prove we are not lust sitting back and receiving Marshall Aid because it has been offered to us, but that we are fighting our way out of our own difficulties and building up and restoring our reputation as a fighting people, will be of enormous value to us in the United States. I say most strongly that when we are thinking of encouraging American tourism in this country, we can never lose sight of that aspect of the matter.
We have to put our own case across. It may be called propaganda—I do not care; we must be blunt about it. This is a fascinating matter to people who are vitally interested in us, the staunchest stanchion of their bulwark in Europe. They want to know how we are doing. There is a wonderful picture to paint and a wonderful story to tell, and there are wonderful scenes to be shown in that regard, because of or in spite of His Majesty's Government, although we will not introduce anything controversial in that line. The docks of London; the docks of the Clyde—the shipbuilding yards of the Clyde are the finest in the world and nothing will ever beat them—the men who work there; the docks in the Mersey; they are all a tremendous advertisement of the spirit and guts of the people of this country.
Above all, let us invite people from the open countryside of the United States to come and see the way we run our land. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We should invite them to see the way we work on our land and
332
to see what we get off our land, and give them something to compare with what they can get off their land. We have something of which we can be profoundly proud, and in that connection what better part of England could they come to than the West of England?
We have tremendous opportunities, but I feel with regret that we are wasting many of them. I urge that we should take far more energetic steps to paint our own picture. If we paint it properly, we can not only double but treble those who will want to come here. We can look after them and we can send them back good friends of England and of Scotland, and possibly even of Wales.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. John E. Haire: I am sure that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who so successfully initiated this Debate, little dreamed that he was setting us off on a Cook's tour of our country. He and other hon. Members who have spoken have succeeded in inscribing in our official record a eulogy of this country which is the best advertisement for which we could ask in connection with our tourism. Indeed, it has been a joy to listen to hon. Members building up this picture of Britain and of their own constituencies which is sometimes lacking in the reports which are given to our friends across the Atlantic.
I am very tempted to follow in their steps by referring to my own constituency because of the importance it held to the G.Is. and American airmen who came to this country. It was from High Wycombe that the Eighth Bomber Air Force launched its campaign against the Continent. In High Wycombe we had the very highest regard for the many thousands of Americans who came and lived amongst us. We received from them many messages and promises that they will come back one day as peacetime tourists. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am anxious that they shall come back soon, and for that reason I am glad to support the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby in this Debate.
I am glad that hon. Members have not suggested that all we want our American friends for is to fleece them of their dollars. I am sure that once we encourage them to come here they will

333
not hesitate to spend their dollars. We shall be grateful for that, but the important part of our tourism is that we shall get to know each other better. As some of my hon. Friends have said, nothing is more needed than that at present. Like other hon. Members I had an opportunity to go to the United States about a year ago. I learned much of America, and I also learnt that the Americans need to know a great deal more about us. They are anxious to do so, and therefore if we can get them here, not the fictional type of American tourist, but the real human man and woman of America, I am certain that we can send them back knowing us and liking us better. For that reason the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. On-Ewing) was right in saying that the American type of tourist is not the nightlife seeker or the fictional American who used to come and have a 10-second look at Westminster Abbey only to say, "Tick that off." We want the type—and I am sure we shall get the type—of American who is coming to get to know us.
Therefore, I ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade if he will do something to get us away from the tourist atmosphere which, unfortunately, surrounds the tourist agency tour and get tourists into our homes. We ought to encourage the setting up in our towns and villages of Anglo-American friendship circles or bureaux where it would be possible for us to say to these tourists, "Come and spend the weekend with such and such a family" or "There is hospitality offered in such and such a house." There, indeed, they would get to know the heart of England and of our people. If we can do anything to divert tours from the well-trodden paths they have followed in the past, and get them into our villages, even into our "locals"—which were such a joy to so many G.Is. during the war—then they will get to know England.
In this respect I would put in a word for an organisation to which I belong, the English Speaking Union, which does magnificent work in offering hospitality to American visitors. If we could get this sort of club established throughout the country, that would give more the sort of hospitality I would like to extend to them. Americans are great joiners, as
334
somebody has said; they like to join clubs. I would like to think that while they are here the facilities of golf clubs, sailing clubs, working-men's clubs and so on should be open to our visitors. I know this is not something for which my hon. Friend can legislate, but it is something he could recommend.
Something in which I have always been interested is the exchange visit, and this will commend itself to the hon. Member for Scarborough I have no doubt. At the present time, for example, we have in this country a group of American housewives from the Middle West—in fact, they are leaving today to fly back to the United States. They have been in this country for some days, they have met our housewives, and I am sure they have got to know our home and kitchen problems much better as a result. I should like to feel that we are encouraging the type of tour which consists of workmen from a special industry in the United States visiting their opposite numbers in this country and living with them. And that might apply equally to teachers and students in far greater numbers than at present.
I understand that as a result of the number of G.I. brides from this country, mutuality groups have been set up in order to maintain contact between the relatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Here, indeed, is a means whereby my hon. Friend can give encouragement for exchange visits. As the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said, some of the brides of these parents are most anxious to visit their children or to receive visits from them. If we can encourage that, I certainly will be able to satisfy many of my constituents.
The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) rightly said that the Americans are very publicity-conscious. Those of us who have been there know how much publicity is a part of their daily lives. He was quite right in saying that if we are to sell British tourism, we must have absolutely first-class publicity. Here I want to offer a word of congratulation to the British Holidays and Tourist Board for the excellent series of booklets and brochures they have issued recently. It is one thing to issue those brochures; it is another thing to have them distributed. I hope that in the United States we have

335
machinery to see that the widest possible distribution is given to them. I do not go so far as to say that we ought to go skywriting "Come to Britain," but that is the sort of spectacular thing which Americans look for. I hope that through our British Information Service in the United States we are not only telling the story of Britain, which is the point which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was so anxious to make, but that we are revealing the tourist possibilities of this country.
Americans will come to Britain. They will ask for good accommodation, good food, and I believe that we can satisfy them. Certainly, many of them are surprised at the quality of the hospitality which they can be given. They will equally ask for weather such as they can enjoy, but, ours is English weather, and that is something which my hon. Friend cannot control. I have not the slightest doubt, however, that, taking all our amenities together, we can offer to our American friends across the Atlantic the best possible holiday in this country.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The discussion has been most useful, and I join with other hon. Members in expressing gratitude to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) for introducing the subject of the Debate. Anything which contributes to the establishment of good will between our friends in the United States and our own people, and at the same time helps to earn dollars so that we may begin to solve our problem of balance, is most desirable. I ought to disclose my own personal interest, since that example has been set by other Members. I sit, of course, for that great city of Rochester and the famous town of Chatham. I am quite sure that hon. Members would agree with me that the attractions which those two towns have to offer equal claims of others already established.
The Government take this matter most seriously. They have helped substantially to finance the British Tourist and Holidays Board. That Board, composed of members of the industry in the widest sense, does a very good job. They represent hotels, both large and small, and the other attractions which make for good
336
holidays and encourage the tourist to come to this country. Associated with the British Tourist and Holidays Board are the Welsh and Scottish Tourist and Holidays Boards. Those three organisations together are alive to the need both for publicity and for providing amenities when the tourist arrives in this country.
With regard to publicity, the British Tourist and Holidays Board have recently opened up much bigger and new offices in New York. Their office in Madison Avenue is a centre which is attracting great attention. From it is distributed literature of all kinds to travel agencies throughout the United States. Advertising is carried out in the Press, in magazines and on the radio. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) suggested that we ought to make more use of films as an advertising medium. I am not sure how far films are already used, but I have taken note of the suggestion with a view to seeing that this avenue is explored.
Publicity is designed to attract not only the luxury traveller, but also those from the middle and lower income groups. I agree with what has been said to the effect that the attractions that we have to offer are much wider and better than those appealing to those who want to go to what appear to be the luxury resorts or the glamour of night clubs and things of that kind. I shall suggest to the British Tourist and Holidays Board that extracts be taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT in order that the comments made by hon. Members about their constituencies might be distributed throughout the United States
Accommodation is not as we would have wished but one recognises that the war destroyed much of our seaside property where we have most of the attractive hotels in which necessary facilities are provided. To some extent, they have been re-equipped and rebuilt, and where it is necessary to build new hotels we are struggling with the limited amount of labour and material to provide houses for people and factories which must be considered alongside the need for new hotels and the re-equipping of those damaged during the war.
Comment was made on the need for de-requisitioning. I agree that that is a vital need and we have given full con-

337
sideration to it. Indeed 96 per cent. of the hotels requisitioned have been de-requisitioned and given back to the industry in order that there should be more accommodation for housing tourists. Replacement of equipment is also necessary and we hope that with increased production it will now be possible to give those facilities which make for the comfort and well-being of holiday visitors. In time of great shortages the public readily acceded to the decision to provide hotels with extra linen and extra facilities which a rationed public might have resented, but they recognised it as part of our endeavour to bridge the gap and make the economic position of the country easier.
A suggestion was made that we should try to encourage the tourist to come outside the ordinary holiday season. I entirely agree and we are doing all we can to achieve that. The problem is partly due to the travelling and holiday habits of the American citizen. We know the problem we have here in trying to stagger holidays and it is not easy, but we are doing all we can by stressing that there are attractions outside the normal holiday season such as music festivals to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) referred. I am glad to say that as a result of the co-operation of the promoters of such events we are securing added interest in the matter and an effort is being made to provide attractions outside the normal holiday season, which we trust will give encouragement.
An hon. Member suggested that we should try to get excursion rates and cheap rates for air travel and shipping. Towards the end of last year we introduced an excursion rate for air travel, and I shall convey to the Minister of Civil Aviation the suggestion that that idea might be further considered. I shall convey to the Minister of Transport the same request about facilities other than those which exist so that those who come by ship may have cheaper fares and different conditions from those prevailing. Another hon. Member suggested that something should be done about removing Purchase Tax on certain goods. I cannot deal with that as it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but last year a scheme was introduced whèreby people were able to buy goods and have them sent to the ship or plane exempted
338
from Purchase Tax. I know from expressions conveyed to me from overseas visitors that that was helpful and, judging by sales, it had good results in earning dollars.
Much has been said about petrol. That is primarily a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power. I can give an assurance that I have given the Minister no rest in my endeavour to get advantages for overseas visitors, and I must pay a tribute to the Ministry of Fuel and Power for having agreed to concessions. But even now there may be other concessions which might be considered. I have not the least doubt that the Minister of Fuel and Power will have the opportunity of reading what has been said, and it may be possible to grant further concessions consistent with good order and economy. We must remember that petrol costs dollars, and we cannot afford to waste dollars on the one hand when we are trying to save them on the other.
Currency difficulties have been mentioned. We do our best, within the necessary restrictions, to make it easy and understandable for visitors, and to see that the difficulties for them are not too great. If any hon. Member can suggest ways to help in that direction, I shall be glad to pass on the information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree entirely with what has been said about the need for unrestricted passage. I consider that passports and visas and things of that kind are irksome, but at the present time there is need for some kind of control. The Foreign Secretary himself has expressed his views on this matter in no uncertain manner. He took the lead in doing away with visas, and if he had the opportunity, and could get the co-operation of other countries, he would be willing to go even further. He has on several occasions publicly expressed a wish that we could get back to the days when passports and visas were unnecessary. I think, therefore, that we can leave it to him to bring about changes of that kind as and when it is practicable.
The question of health forms and other necessary forms which have to be filled in, and the investigations which have to be carried out, is a matter about which we have to be extremely careful. The Minister of Health has considered this matter, but it would be very unfortunate if because of the outbreak of some

339
disease, tourists were prevented from coming to this country. It is in the interests, therefore, both of the visitors and ourselves that there should be some control in this way. I agree that it ought not to be irksome, and where it is possible to facilitate the filling in of these forms, or the movement of people through the necessary barriers, it should be done.
The matter of Customs has been referred to. The Customs officers do a remarkable job when we consider the difficulties under which they have to work. I have been aware of this matter and have established a working party which is going round the ports and different air centres at the present time to see whether it is possible to provide better accommodation and facilities for people coming from overseas. I consider that that working party is doing a good job and I hope in due course to be able to report that many of the difficulties have been removed. Generally the Departments concerned endeavour to make it easier for overseas visitors to come to this country, and remove any difficulty which will prevent them from so doing.
I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Cheltenham that the local authorities must be brought in. They can be extremely useful in providing facilities which cannot be given in other ways. Many hon. Members have
340
requested facilities whereby their local authorities can introduce some scheme or get some attraction in their district renovated or renewed. On every occasion it has been possible either to assist in that direction or do something more in the way of providing extra amenities for local authorities to provide services for the overseas visitors.
As an illustration that the British Tourist and Holidays Board are doing their work really well, I can tell the House that we had the record figure of over 100,000 American tourists to this country in 1948. Of that number 75,000 stayed, and 27,000 stayed for a time and then went on to other parts of Europe. The amount earned was £10 million. I have been told by the Board that they hope that in 1949 we shall have some 25,000 more American visitors, earning for us £14 million. I think that the only things that stop us from having more are the transport facilities which are in short supply because of our economic position. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight. I have taken note of points that, perhaps, have not been answered and shall report them to the Ministers concerned.
Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Ten o'Clock.

  SCOTLAND (TEACHERS)
  SCOTLAND (TEACHERS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  E.R.P. (Publicity)
  E.R.P. (Publicity)
  Scottish Administration (Cost)
  Scottish Administration (Cost)
  Meat (Customs Confiscation)
  Meat (Customs Confiscation)
  War Damage Claims (Irregularities)
  War Damage Claims (Irregularities)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Temporary Executive Officers
  Temporary Executive Officers
  Prime Minister's Public Relations Officer
  Prime Minister's Public Relations Officer
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Worsted and Woollen Cloths
  Worsted and Woollen Cloths
  Ladies' Overalls
  Ladies' Overalls
  Japan
  Japan
  Lamp and Valve-Making Machinery (Imports)
  Lamp and Valve-Making Machinery (Imports)
  Wool Control
  Wool Control
  Women's Shoes and Stockings
  Women's Shoes and Stockings
  Andes Agreement (U.K. Exports)
  Andes Agreement (U.K. Exports)
  U.S. Cotton (Imports)
  U.S. Cotton (Imports)
  Furniture (Profit Margins)
  Furniture (Profit Margins)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES, BLACKPOOL (HEATING)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES, BLACKPOOL (HEATING)
  GOWERS COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  GOWERS COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  SHIPPING (REPAIRS, EIRE)
  SHIPPING (REPAIRS, EIRE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Andes Agreement (Shipments)
  Andes Agreement (Shipments)
  Wheat Prices
  Wheat Prices
  RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION)
  RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DENTAL LISTS)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DENTAL LISTS)
  LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER)
  LAND (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER)
  KENYA (TRADE UNIONISM)
  KENYA (TRADE UNIONISM)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unlicensed Hotels (Wage Rates)
  Unlicensed Hotels (Wage Rates)
  Building Workers, The Hartlepools
  Building Workers, The Hartlepools
  Silicosis (Caernarvonshire)
  Silicosis (Caernarvonshire)
  Mossley
  Mossley
  Woollen and Worsted Industries
  Woollen and Worsted Industries
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POST OFFICE AND RAILWAY WORKERS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POST OFFICE AND RAILWAY WORKERS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Derwent—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his Brother.
TWICKENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the British North America Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EIREANN CITIZENS IN GREAT BRITAIN
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands on the Paper in my name, and to which I imagine the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may be replying, may I be allowed to say how glad I am to see him back? I beg to ask the Question.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:

(1) What is the date on which a sovereign independent State of Eire, not under allegiance to the Crown and not forming part of the Commonwealth, is expected to come into existence?

(2) What is the approximate number of citizens of Eire who, by giving notice in writing to the Home Secretary under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, have claimed to remain British subjects?

(3) Is there any form provided for giving such notice, is its receipt
544
acknowledged or registered, and does the individual who gives it receive any or what certificate that he does remain a British subject?

(4) Since the subsection provides that the notice can be given "at any time," can it, in the view of the Government, be given at any future date in the lifetime of the individual giving it? What is the status of such an individual in the interval?]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. I return in perfect health, and with a keen appreciation of the much-abused British climate! The answers to the Question are as follows. To the first question: I understand that the Government of Eire intend to bring the Republic of Ireland Act into operation on April 18. To the second: Approximately 2,800 claims have been received up to March 18. To the third: There is no prescribed form of words for the notice, but a draft letter giving notice in suitable terms has been prepared by the Home Office and is sent to claimants when necessary. All claims are registered and acknowledged. No certificate is given to the claimant, but he is advised to retain the acknowledgment as proof that he has given the necessary notice. To the fourth: The claim to remain a British subject can be made at any future date in the lifetime of the Eire citizen concerned. Until he does so—unless, of course, he is a British subject under one of the other provisions of the Act—he is regarded in this country as a citizen of Eire but not as an alien.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the Lord Chancellor very much for those answers, may I ask him whether it is convenient for him to answer this supplementary question? My original Question related to Section 2 of the British Nationality Act. It may be that the noble and learned Viscount is able to give information also as to the extent to which use has been made of Section 6, which applies to applications, not to become a British subject but to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If we could have that information, it would be useful. When the noble and learned Viscount was away, we were told, in

545
answer to a previous Question, that legislation was being considered for implementing the purposes of these sections of the British Nationality Act. Is the noble and learned Viscount able to tell us whether such legislation will be introduced?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the last question, legislation will be introduced—and introduced in the quite near future. I must not, of course, anticipate or guess at the contents of the legislation. With regard to the question about Section 6, I am sorry to say that I have not the information with me here. If I had, I would of course give it to the noble and learned Viscount. Perhaps I may ascertain it, and let him know privately what the answer is.
May I, before I conclude, say a word in regard to the noble and learned Viscount himself? I am very grateful indeed to him for what he has done to accelerate the conduct of the Business of the House while I have been away—though knowing him, as I have done for many years, I fully anticipated it.

NEW THAMES WALL
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the construction of the new Thames wall between County Hall and Waterloo Bridge will result in any, and if so what, reduction in the width of the river; and, if so, whether they can give an assurance that such reduction is not calculated to increase the danger of flooding.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the surface width of the river between County Hall and Waterloo Bridge will be reduced between 65 and 150 feet, but the reduction in the flow will be by no means in proportion, because the space between the existing bank and the new wall is largely mudflat and is already obstructed by jetties. The answer to the second part of the question is "Yes."

BOLTON GAS ORDER, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the House have just shown how glad they are to see the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor back on the Woolsack. I know that there is no one who grudged him a moment of the short time he was away, but part of the price has yet to be paid by all members of the House—and not least by myself, because, if he had returned a few days earlier, he would be presenting and expounding this complicated measure, with infinitely more authority and lucidity than are likely to be at my disposal this afternoon. With those few words of apology, I will now turn to the Bill.
This is a short Bill of limited scope. It deals with certain aspects of rent control on which the existing law has been found to be defective. Accordingly, the Bill seeks to remedy these defects, and to remove hardships from which, as a result, a great many people in this country are suffering at the present time. The Bill deals with four main points. First of all, it enables rent tribunals to fix reasonable rents for houses and flats, including parts of houses, let for the first time since September 1, 1939. I would stress those last words—houses and flats let for the first time since September 1, 1939. Secondly, and as a corollary to the first point, it enables the tribunals,

547
where a premium was paid in addition to the rent in the case of these houses, to determine the appropriate amount by which the rent should be reduced on account of the payment of the premium. I would venture to say that those are the two main points in the Bill, but there are at least two other points of considerable importance. Thirdly, it brings within the scope of rent control dwelling houses which have been held to be outside control simply because some part of the living accommodation has been shared by the tenant with the landlord or by the tenant with other tenants. Fourthly, it enables rent tribunals to grant extensions of the period of security of tenure, amounting to three months, to which the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, entitles tenants of furnished lettings who have applied to rent tribunals to have their rents determined.
As your Lordships are aware, the Bill was fully considered and discussed in another place, and I think I may say that it was not only amended but improved. I will say a word in a moment about one or two of the chief Amendments made. In the result, it received general approval, and was not pressed to a Division on the Third Reading. I hope, therefore, that the Bill, as it comes before your Lordships, will commend itself to the House, and that there will be harmonious and, indeed, even enthusiastic acceptance of the Bill in its present form, at any rate at this stage of its progress here. In examining the purposes of the Bill, I propose, if I may be allowed to do so, to restrict myself to its general principles and not to attempt a detailed exposition of the Bill clause by clause. May I take the first of the four main points? The first object of the Bill is to provide a better control of the rents which may be charged for houses let for the first time—I keep stressing those words—since September 1, 1939. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that under the Rent Restrictions Acts the standard rent of a house not previously let which comes within the scope of the Acts is the rent at which it is first let—that is to say, that a landlord has hitherto been free on the first letting of the house to obtain the highest rent that he can get for it, and that rent then becomes the standard rent. In other words, up
548
to the present, rent control applies only to second and subsequent lettings. Naturally, in a period of great housing shortage, very high rents can be obtained for houses not previously let, and there is evidence that excessive rents have in fact been charged for such houses, more particularly since the end of the war but also in a number of cases during the war in areas where there was great pressure on the housing accommodation available.
I break off to say that, in speaking of houses, of course, I include flats, an increasing number of which have become available in the last few years by the conversion of large houses. This conversion is naturally a most desirable process, from the point of view of increasing the supply of housing accommodation, but it has often been accompanied by demands for unreasonably high rent, which those in search of homes have had to pay. I think there will be general agreement with the proposition that excessive profits should not be extracted from a situation of shortages, particularly where the shortage is in a commodity such as housing, which is so essential to human existence and decent family life. It seems reasonable, therefore, to extend the Rent Restrictions Acts to cover first lettings that have taken place since the special emergency began with the outbreak of the war, when building largely ceased.
In the light of that consideration, the Bill proposes that, where a house subject to rent control, or part of such a house, is let for the first time since September 1, 1939, the landlord or tenant may apply to a rent tribunal to fix a reasonable rent, and the reasonable rent so fixed, if it is less than the rent previously payable, becomes the standard rent from the date of the determination by the tribunal. Due allowance is to be made for any increase in rent that would have been permitted under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The rent which is reasonable for a dwelling house is to be the rent which is in all circumstances reasonable on a letting of that dwelling house on the terms and conditions, other than the terms and conditions fixing the amount of the rent, on which the dwelling house is let at the time of the application. I should emphasise here that the reasonable rent as determined by the tribunal, if it is less than the previous standard rent,

549
becomes payable only from the date on which the tribunal reach their decision. That is clearly important. There is no provision enabling a tenant to recover any rent he may have paid in the past. Some criticism of the Bill was made in another place on the ground that it would discourage conversion of houses into flats, and also reconditioning, by interfering with contracts already entered into for payment of rent. But some Government intervention is clearly justifiable when one party to the bargain has been placed in an undesirably strong position through no effort of his own; and the extent of the actual interference is limited to the future and is not retrospective.
Another criticism was that conversion and reconditioning would also be discouraged because persons proposing to provide accommodation in this way would not know what rent they could properly charge and, therefore, what return they could receive on their investment. I am glad to say that the provision added to the Bill enabling the landlord as well as the tenant to apply to the tribunal for a determination of the rent, coupled with the proposals recently introduced in another place for the improvement of houses, was one of the factors which assisted in securing agreement to the Bill as a whole. I would particularly stress the provision which was added enabling landlord, as well as tenant, to apply to the tribunal for determination of the rent. I would mention, in passing, however, that certain houses are excluded from the scope of this provision. These are houses under the management of a housing association which normally attract Exchequer subsidy, and the rents of which are approved by the local authority. A development corporation established under the New Towns Act is regarded as a housing association, and this is made clear in the Bill. Also excluded are houses the rents of which are limited by any enactment other than the Rent Restrictions Acts. I could go into that subject at much greater length, but perhaps these matters are more appropriate at a later stage.
I would now pass to the second main point. It is not sufficient merely to provide machinery for fixing reasonable rents. The housing shortage not only allowed exorbitant rents to be obtained but also provided the opportunity for
550
levying excessive premiums—and the second point is concerned with premiums. This, I venture to think is an issue that will tax all those members of this House who are not already expert in this field, but the broad case can be stated quite clearly. Under the existing law, it is generally illegal to charge a premium for the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of a house to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply—a notable exception being leases for fourteen years or more—and in addition to having to repay the illegal premium the person charging it is liable to a fine not exceeding £100. In practice, however, it is often difficult to prove an offence and to recover what has been paid by way of illegal premium. The Bill, therefore, makes provision in effect for the recovery of part of any excessive premium not already recovered. It does so by enabling the tenant to proceed as follows. On making application to a tribunal to have the reasonable rent determined, he may require the tribunal to determine the rental equivalent of any premium that may have been paid by him or a previous tenant under the same tenancy of the dwelling house. Having had this rental equivalent determined, the tenant can then make sure that its amount is deducted from the reasonable rent.
The determination of the rental equivalent depends on what reasonable rent may be charged. Perhaps I may make this a little clearer by an illustration. Suppose that the lease on a house has been granted for ten years, at a rent of £125 per annum and a premium of £500. We will suppose that the tenant makes application to the tribunal at the end of four years. The problem is, to find the rental equivalent of the premium he has paid. To do that we divide the £500 paid as premium by the ten years of the tenancy, and thus discover that the rental equivalent of the premium is £50. We will further assume that the reasonable rent fixed by the tribunal is £100, against the £125 which in fact this tenant has been paying; so the £100 is what the tenant would have to pay for the remaining six years if no question of a premium had ever arisen. But as he has already paid a premium having a rental equivalent of £50, he actually has to pay, for the remaining six years, only the reasonable rent of £100 minus the £50—in other words £50 a year for six years.

551
If this gentleman is paying £125 a year, the tribunal would say to him, "You ought only to be paying £100 a year. That is what you will have to pay for the remaining six years." But he says, "I have already paid a large sum in premium." The tribunal then work out the rental equivalent and say, "You will have to pay only £50 a year for the remaining six years, instead of the £125 which you have been paying hitherto." One can put it the other way round. Over the six years, the tenant recovers £300 of the £500 he has paid as premium. Compared with a man who rented a similar house at the same rent, but who paid no premium and who had the same reasonable rent fixed after the same period of time, he would be £200 worse off to-day having paid the premium. So he would not get it all back; he would get £300 out of £500. The Government are going a long way to enable tenants to recover premiums, but they have not made the Act entirely retrospective.
Where the letting is for less than seven years, it has been found necessary to assume a letting of that period which may be taken as a reasonable estimate of the time the tenant expected to stay when he took the letting. I might pursue that point a little further if pressed, but perhaps for the moment I have inflicted almost enough mental arithmatic on the House. In cases where the premium is so excessive that the rental equivalent exceeds the reasonable rent, the tribunal fixes a date falling at the end of a rent period and so calculated that if the letting were to continue to that date the rental equivalent would be less than the reasonable rent but as nearly as possible equal to it. That, I feel, would supply a reasonable intelligence test to students, but I will attempt to illustrate that also with an example.
Let me go back to the example I gave—that is, a lease for ten years at an actual rent of £125 per annum, with, let us suppose, a reasonable rent fixed after four years at £100 a year. In the case I gave the premium was £500, but let us suppose that the premium had been grossly excessive—shall we say £2,000? With a ten-year tenancy, the rental equivalent would be £200, or twice as much as the reasonable rent. In this kind of extreme case the tribunal will assume that the
552
tenancy is for twenty years; the rental equivalent of the premium becomes £100 a year, the reasonable rent (the rent that the gentleman has to pay for the rest of the time) has been fixed at the same figure; so that the tenant, in the extreme case where a very exorbitant premium was paid, can live rent free for the remaining sixteen years; and after all he has gone through and the calculations made on his behalf, who shall say that he has not earned a degree of immunity!
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is he bound to stay for twenty years?
LORD PAKENHAM: No one can be forced to stay for twenty years. But let us look at it fairly and squarely. After all, the man has recovered only £1,600 of the £2,000 that he paid, and he would be £400 worse off than a friend who took a similar house without a premium at a similar rent, and who had it reduced to a reasonable rent at the same time; and he would be £500 worse off than a friend who took a similar house and paid a reasonable rent from the beginning. No one can say that this gentleman has scored unduly. What he has got back is most of the exorbitant premium which was originally inflicted upon him.
I would add just two points in this connection. The first is that the right of recovering a part of the premium in this way ceases when a new tenancy is granted to a new tenant, but it does not cease when there is an assignment of a tenancy. Secondly, where the ownership of a house has changed since the premium has been paid, the tenant has no right of recovery against the new landlord. He may, however, recover in a lump sum from the landlord to whom the premium was paid—that is, the original landlord—the amount of the premium he would have been able to recover by deduction from the rent had there been no change in ownership.
I must mention, though I do not wish to detain the House unduly, that the Bill contains other provisions about premiums. As I explained earlier, premiums are generally illegal under the existing law. The Bill, with limited exceptions, makes illegal all premiums for houses to which the Acts apply, whether they are required for the grant, continuance, renewal or assignment of a tenancy—I stress that phrase. One of the chief criticisms of the Bill as originally intro-

553
duced was that, while providing for the recovery in part of premiums charged by landlords, it allowed tenants, who make no contribution to the provision of accommodation, to charge premiums on assigning leases. This has been put right, and I am hopeful that this fact also will endear the Bill still mere effectively to your Lordships. Certainly it had a great effect in another place. The provisions in the Bill relating to premiums are, I must acknowledge, somewhat complicated, but I hope that the explanations I have given will enable them to be readily understood. I venture to say, however, that no one will criticise the purpose of the Government in trying to ensure the partial recovery of excessive premiums paid in the past.
I now come to the third and fourth points, which are only of slightly less importance than the first and second. On the one hand, there is the matter of the bringing of tenants of shared rooms within the protection of rent control and, on the other, there is the extension of security of tenure to tenants of furnished lettings. I hope that the relevant provisions will prove less controversial than those which I have already touched upon.
To take first the sharing of rooms. The Rent Restrictions Acts apply to a house or part of a house let "as a separate dwelling," if it is let unfurnished, and falls within the limits of rateable value—that is, £100 in London, £75 elsewhere in England and Wales and £90 in Scotland—specified in the Acts. The tenant of such a house is protected by the Acts against unauthorised increases in rent and against eviction without the sanction of the court. In 1943, it will be remembered, the Court of Appeal held that a letting by which the tenant shared living accommodation with his landlord was not a letting of a house as a separate dwelling. Subsequent decisions have shown that a kitchen, used for cooking only, constitutes living accommodation, and that a sharing between tenants destroys the protection of the Act just as effectually as sharing between a tenant and a landlord. These decisions have caused widespread concern, and have defeated the original purposes of the Act. The Bill sets out to remedy this particular defect. It draws a distinction between tenants who share rooms
554
with their landlords and those who share them with other tenants. As was pointed out by the Committee over which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, presided with so much skill, and whose Report has been so widely studied, it would clearly be undesirable for an arrangement to share living rooms between landlord and tenant to be brought within the Rent Restrictions Acts, and, in effect, rendered permanent. Accordingly, the Bill proposes in such cases—that is, where the tenant is sharing with the landlord—that the tenant shall have the right to appeal to a rent tribunal to fix a reasonable rent, and shall thus be able to obtain three months protection, with the possibility of extensions. This last is a matter with which I will shortly deal. Tenants who share living accommodation with other tenants will be given the full protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, in their tenancy of the accommodation which they occupy separately—for example, bedrooms, or, it may be, living rooms. The power of a landlord to modify a tenant's right to use accommodation shared with ether tenants—for example, a kitchen—will be restricted by the Bill, and any modification on his part which goes further than a variation in the number and identity of the other tenants with whom he must share can be authorised only by the county court. I can imagine that it might be very irritating, when you had arranged to share a kitchen with people you liked, if they were to disappear and people whom you did not like were set in their place. But, clearly, one could not insist on the personal charm of one's co-tenants as a matter of right.
So much for the third point; I now come to the fourth. Under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, the tenant of premises let furnished or with services can apply to a tribunal to fix a reasonable rent, and once the tenant has applied to a tribunal no notice to quit served on him can take effect until three months after the case is decided, unless the tribunal reduce this period. It was hoped when this provision was passed that landlords would refrain from turning out their tenants at the end of three months simply because they had appealed to a tribunal. It has become plain, however, that, in very many cases, evictions do follow on these appeals, and that many

555
tenants who are being charged excessive rents are not prepared to apply to a tribunal because they are afraid of being turned out. In suitable cases, the Minister of Health has allowed requisitioning, to prevent hardship, but requisitioning is not always—and perhaps not usually—the appropriate remedy. The Bill, therefore, will give tenants who have been to a tribunal, have had their rents determined and have subsequently received a notice to quit, the right, unless on the original application the tribunal decided to reduce the normal period of three months, to apply to the tribunal again before the notice expires, for postponement of the notice to quit. This right will also apply to tenants who share their rooms with their landlord.
If I am a tenant, and I go to a tribunal and have my rent determined, and the landlord comes along and says that I must clear out, I have the right to apply to the tribunal again before the notice expires. On application, and after giving both parties the opportunity of being heard, or of submitting representations in writing, tribunals may extend by not more than three months the time before the notice to quit can take effect. The tenant, if he continues to receive notices to quit, can make fresh applications at intervals, and the tribunal can give fresh extensions—but never more than three months at a time. The system will thus be quite flexible, and will allow full account to be taken of any changes of circumstances.
My Lords, as I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a short Bill. I fear that it is complicated, but that is inevitable in view of the nature of the subject. I have set out its main principles. I know that there are many of your Lordships who have given many years—more years probably than I have given hours—to the study of these matters. But I hope and believe that the House will feel that this Bill does what it says—namely, remedies certain defects—and I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is a Bill which should be given a warm welcome and a Second Reading to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it is rather refreshing, if I may say so, to see
556
the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is usually thinking in the air (I do not, of course, use that expression in any offensive sense, for it is a thing that is in the nature of his job), grounded for a while with these rather duller subjects, with which it seems largely my fate to deal in this House. However, I think his head was a little in the air when he thought this Bill might receive enthusiastic acceptance in the House. I feel that it would be wrong to give enthusiastic reception to a Bill which imposes more restrictions, and which has its whole roots in the present scarcity of dwelling houses.
Not one of the main points to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention would need to be dealt with at all had we overcome the scarcity of housing accommodation. Were there plenty of houses, a tenant of a furnished house would not wish to stay there against his landlord's wishes, which always makes circumstances somewhat difficult. Were there plenty of houses, the Rent Restrictions Acts need not be extended to people who share part of the accommodation. Were there plenty of houses, the rents of houses first let since 1939 would by now be adjusting themselves. Again, were there plenty of houses, no one would have any chance of asking for a premium, and no one would think of paying one. Therefore, the first conclusion we may legitimately draw from the very introduction of this Bill, despite what may be said up and down the country, is that little has been done in the past four years to solve this problem. Indeed, in the last year—the best year, so far, in the administration of the present Government—the number of houses built is less than two-thirds of what was being built annually in the years just before the war. It is the failure to solve this vital problem which gives birth to rent restrictions of any kind. Partial success brings the gradual elimination of various classes of houses from rent restriction, and complete success should see these Acts disappear altogether.
Let me now deal seriatim with the four main provisions of the Bill which the noble Lord has outlined to the House. First there is the extension of security of tenure to tenants of furnished flats. I think that on this matter the Minister of Health has been rather naïve in his utterances. When introducing this Bill

557
on Second Reading in another place, he said:
"If honourable Members will cast their minds back, they will recall that we were at that time asking people to share their homes"—
that was in 1945–46—
"particularly with returning ex-Service men. I was apprehensive that if we tied a landlady or landlord and a tenant by Act of Parliament to a propinquity which would be repugnant to either of them, or to both, it might have the effect of losing accommodation which might otherwise be available. In other words, I was apprehensive that people would not let rooms if, having let them once, they could never get rid of the tenant."
So the Minister limited the extension of a tenancy by a rent tribunal to a period of three months. What is to be the position now? A tenant can go to the tribunal and although he is turned down by it time after time, he may get an extra three months each time. The Minister induced landladies or landlords to take in a tenant—it was more often the former than the latter, because, if I may say in parenthesis, in the popular mind landladies are thought to be more sympathetic.
LORD PAKENHAM: Why?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I believe it may be because we have not yet Peeresses sitting with us in this House! Whether that be the case or not, the Minister induced landladies and landlords to take in a tenant and make accommodation available, on the ground that there would be no compulsory permanency. Now he brings in a provision to make those tenancies permanent. His earlier promise may have led some people "up the garden path," but, apart from that, I feel the Minister was right in the view he took in 1946. The present provisions may make people reluctant to tie themselves to tenants, perhaps for ever. This tendency may mean the drying up of sources of additional accommodation. That is the only comment I will make on this provision, but it is obviously one that we cannot enthusiastically welcome.
The second main point in effect means the reversing of the decision in the case of Neal v. Del Soto. I do not think anyone will quarrel with this provision. It was long thought that, in the administration of the Rent Restrictions Acts, if two tenants shared a kitchen and lavatory accommodation, they were within the ambit of the Acts. It is only lately that that position has been reversed by
558
a court decision, and I, for one, think it right to restore the position as originally understood.
I come to the third main point—namely, the right given to the rent tribunals to review the rent of houses let for the first time since September 1, 1939. This is contrary to the Report of the Ridley Committee, which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill so rightly praised. Indeed, it is contrary to common sense, if we are aiming to have more houses built for letting. It is true, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, that under the Bill as it comes to us—in contrast to the position under the Bill as it was first introduced in another place—the landlord may apply to the tribunal to ask what rent will be applicable to a house. What I would like to ask is this—and perhaps the noble Lord can answer the question when he winds up the debate: Does that apply only to a house already built, or could a landlord apply to ascertain what would be the permissible rent were he to build a house on an ascertained site and to an ascertained plan?
Even more important, perhaps, is the question: Can he apply to the appropriate tribunal to ascertain what rent he would be allowed to charge were he to convert an existing house into two or more flats, before he actually gives orders for the conversion to take place? If a landlord cannot do this, it is unlikely that he will build houses to let, or that he will undertake to put these conversions in hand. It is one thing as a business risk to assess what the public may be prepared to pay; but it is another thing to decide what exact assessment a tribunal, with no rules to guide them, may make in a particular case. That is the kind of risk that few people who were thinking of building houses to let, or of converting houses into two or more flats, would be prepared to take, unless they were giver some means of knowing in advance what they were likely to recoup. If this provision is not now in the Bill, it is one of the matters we should look at in Committee to see if we can make it possible for a prospective builder or converter to take this course.
I now come to the fourth main matter—namely, the vexed question of premiums. I suppose premiums have existed in connection with house property

559
ever since the time when the ground landlord gave a long lease at a low rent on a convenient and accessible plot of land, on condition that the lessee built a house upon it. The lessee having built that house, and no longer, perhaps, wishing to live in it himself, assigned the lease to someone else and, quite legitimately, asked for a premium, in part to recoup him for the cost of building the house. The premiums between willing lessors and willing lessees, took into account, of course, the amount that had to be paid in rent and also the number of years that the lease still had to run. That was all quite legitimate, and, indeed, after this Bill has been passed it can still go on in respect of any houses not within the ambit of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
What we all deplore is the charging of a premium in respect of the lower-rented houses, which are far too few for the demand, when there is no reason whatever to demand a premium except the scarcity of houses. It has always been illegal to charge a premium in regard to a rent-restricted house, and it is only in the case of the category which happened to escape rent restriction that a landlord—and, indeed, a tenant who has a lease to assign—can legally charge a premium. So we shall probably all agree that in the case of scarcity to stop that practice in the future is a proper step to take. Why should a man in a much bombed town be able to make additional profit for the sole reason that his house happened to be one of those which escaped the ravages of the enemy? We know that although the great majority of good landlords have never done anything of the sort, there are some landlords who have.
When we come to the retrospective application of the prohibition of premiums, however, we are entering on a field of legislation in which Parliament should always be watchful and of which people in this country are always rightfully suspicious. It seems to me that it can be justified only on a similar ground to that on which Parliament has in the past agreed to the reopening of, say, a contract of money-lending, because one man has taker, advantage of another man's extremity to such an extent as to make his act unconscionable from the general point of view of the community.
560
Where that state of affairs exists, speaking for myself, I think it is right to reopen the case. I blame the Government, however, for not having been more prompt in dealing with this evil. We know from Mr. Bevan's own words—because the Bill did not originally date back beyond V.J. Day—(I quote from Column 577 of Hansard):
"The fact is that there were not very many lettings of this kind during the war."
That is what he said in his opening speech, in answer to an interruption by Mr. Piratin. Therefore, there was no great need to deal with this matter during the war, but there was every need to deal with it promptly when it arose. Had the Government done so, there need have been no retrospective clauses in this Bill. The prohibition which is now to be put upon exacting premiums could have been effected in 1945, or at any rate early in 1946.
So long as the rent charged takes the premium into account, there is nothing unconscionable where a landlord has spent a considerable amount of money on a conversion which is a beneficial operation, making two or more flats available where there was only one house before, and has agreed with a tenant immediately to recoup him on a part of the cost of that conversion. Indeed, it may well be that this landlord, who is helping to solve the housing problem, having the ready money available which the premium secures, will perhaps have sufficient funds to make further conversions and provide more living accommodation to the general good of the community. That is the kind of factor the tribunals should take into account; otherwise, they will impede this side of the housing programme.
In connection with these applications for reconsideration of premiums paid, there should be a limit on the time within which applications for their reconsideration must be received. If a man feels aggrieved by a premium that he has paid, he may be relied upon to put in his claim within a reasonable time. During the subsequent stages of this Bill I shall suggest an Amendment to impose a time limit of twelve months within which a man must make an application—that is the time limit imposed under the Public Authorities Protection Act, when an action is contemplated against a public

561
authority. Otherwise, we may get a position where a tenant says: "I have freely made a bargain, and I do not intend to re-open it"—being quite content with the bargain he made with the landlord. Yet, on his death, his executors may feel it their duty to re-open the whole transaction in the interests of the estate. That is a kind of action that I do not believe is really within the contemplation of this Bill. The Bill is intended to deal with a man who feels aggrieved and comes to the tribunal to get his bargain reopened. It is not intended to remedy the grievances of anybody else.
Another Amendment which I would like to see made is one to limit the operation of the Bill, when it becomes a Statute, to, say, a period of five years. It is interesting to reflect that the Minister of Health, when he introduced the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, referring to the House of Commons, said:
"The House will note that, at the end of 1947, the measure will die. This is my own estimate"—
he added, "perhaps vague," although I think it was perhaps inaccurate—
"of the period when the worst housing stringency will have ceased to exist."
This Act extends the provisions of that Act, as has been explained to us by the noble Lord. It will be interesting to see whether, if we put down an Amendment to limit the Act to five years, the Government will resist it. If they do, it will show more than anything else their complete lack of confidence in the success of their housing programme. If we cannot get rid of this Bill and these measures within five years, and if they do not estimate that we can, then it will not show much faith in the success of the Minister's efforts in connection with the housing programme.
Although this is a measure which I suppose no one would wish to see permanently or at all on the Statute Book, for it is one which would be completely unnecessary if scarcity conditions did not prevail, nevertheless, there are provisions in it which in existing circumstances should be made, and there are some which, in my view, at any rate, should have been made before. Therefore, my advice to your Lordships would be to give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading to-day. Incidentally, I notice that
562
the concluding remarks of the Minister of Health in another place were these:
"I trust we can now let the Bill go to another place, where I hope the reflections will be amiable and even more speedy than they have been here."
I can, in return, assure the Minister that if he will show some amiability to the few Amendments we may think fit to offer, it will go without saying that he need have no anxiety that there will be any delay in giving him this Bill.
3.37 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, subject to certain criticisms, I think this Bill is Justified and should receive a Second Reading. There are certain provisions of the Bill which it is not easy to understand—namely, subsection (3) of Clause 1, the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 2, subsection (6) of Clause 2 and the proviso to subsection (4) of Clause 3. Those provisions are all rather obscure. However, as Aristotle said, Rent Acts are meant to be passed and not understood.
Let me come to the point as quickly as possible. Is Clause 1 of the Bill really justified? Supposing that the rateable value of a house is £90, and the house was let for the first time in June, 1946, at £450 per annum, then £450 becomes the standard rent. After making every reasonable allowance for the increased cost in every direction, it might well be that a rent of £450 would be taking an unfair advantage of the shortage of housing accommodation in the country and, therefore, it might be a rent which ought to be reduced. So far so good. But if the same house was let, say, in 1941, during the blitz period, for £70 per annum, then £70 would become the standard rent. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, explained the Bill extremely carefully, but he did not tell us whether, under Clause 1, it is open to the landlord, as well as to the tenant, to apply to the tribunal to increase the standard rent up to what might be regarded as the reasonable rent. Perhaps the noble Lord can inform me of that point, before I criticise the matter any further—I gather that the answer is in the negative. If that is the position, I think it is very unfair, because during the war a certain number of people let their houses in London for the first time at a very small rent, one considerably below the reasonable rent which could be charged to-day.

563
In this connection, there is another small point which I wonder whether the Government have taken into consideration. Where the rent charged is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, then the Rent Acts do not apply. In the example which I have given, two-thirds of £90 is £60, and so, if the rent charged for the first time since 1939 is less than £60, the Rent Acts will not apply to that tenancy. And in these circumstances I presume that the landlord can go to the tribunal and have a reasonable rent fixed, which might well be in the region of £200. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply to that point when he comes to sum up on the Bill.
Moreover, this power of the tribunal to determine what rent is reasonable is not subject to appeal. The object of an appeal is not only to attain uniformity but also to attain a greater degree of fairness. By way of analogy, may I cite an actual case which arose on the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946? In that case the chairman of the tribunal set up under that Act said, in open court, that he had been told by the Minister of Health that the Minister had been told by the Attorney-General that the tribunal were not to take Schedule A income tax into account in computing the outgoings payable by the landlord. Whether that was fair or unfair I do not know, and I do not venture to say; I merely suggest that a matter of that description raises a point of principle which ought to be the subject of appeal. The objection to an appeal, especially to an unlimited appeal, is the question of costs. If you have money you appeal to the High Court. If you have more money you go on to the Court of Appeal. If you have more still, you go on to the House of Lords. After that, if you have any money left, you take a taxi-cab and drive to the bankruptcy court! Therefore, no one can have recourse to appeal with equanimity. One way out of the difficulty is to make an appeal to a nominating judge. The cost of such an appeal is a small matter, and the same thing could happen under this Bill as has happened under the Pensions Acts.
With regard to Clause 2 of the Bill, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, would clear up a point which has been raised by the Law Society. The words in subsection (1) of Clause 2:
564
"and has not been fully repaid or recovered"
raise some doubt as to whether Clause 2 is intended to deal only with illegal premiums under the previous law, or whether it applies to tenancies of fourteen years and upwards, or whether the clause applies in respect of any tenancy where application is made to the tribunal.
Clause 3, which is one of the most important clauses, prohibits the imposition in future of a premium on the granting or assigning of a tenancy. This would be commendable if only it did justice to all the people who had already paid premiums. Subsection (4) of Clause 3 enables an outgoing tenant who has in the past paid a premium to his landlord—mark the word "landlord"—to require a proportionate part of that premium to be paid by the incoming tenant who is an assignee. But I am unable to understand why the outgoing tenant should be debarred from recovering a proportionate amount of a premium from an incoming tenant by way of assignment in those cases where the outgoing tenant had himself in the past been an assignee and paid a premium to the previous lessee. I know of a case where a tenant took from a lessee an assignment of a lease of a house, within the limit of the specified rateable value, for a period of thirty-five years, and paid a premium of £4,000. If the tenant remains in occupation for thirty-five years, no hardship will arise, but if the tenant finds it necessary, for business or other reasons, to go and live elsewhere before the thirty-five years have expired, he will not be able to recover a proportionate, or any, part of that premium from anyone to whom he may assign the residue of his term. Moreover, many people have deposited their lease with their bank as security or part security for money advanced by the bank to pay the premium in the first instance. That security will now become worthless, and if the tenant cannot replace the lease by some other security the bank are not likely to be satisfied with an outstanding unsecured loan, and will probably call in the loan, which may put the borrower in a great difficulty.
Subsection (6) of Clause 3, which enables an assignor, by agreement with the assignee, to require the assignee to make the payments mentioned in paragraphs (a). (b), (c), and (d) of that sub-

565
section, is intended to be very fair; but I think it would be still fairer if the words "if it is so agreed" were omitted. Suppose, for example, that the assignor were to pay a half-year's rates in advance, and were then to assign his tenancy during the currency of that half-yearly period; the assignor would normally, in accordance with the usual practice between landlord and tenant, be entitled to charge those rates, or a proportionate amount thereof, against the assignee. But under the Bill as at present drafted, if the assignee did not agree to pay those half-yearly rates, or the proper proportion thereof, that would be the end of the matter, and the assignor could do nothing. I feel that it would be fairer, therefore, to omit the words "if it is so agreed," so leaving it lawful for the assignor, if he so wishes, to require payment of the items mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (6) of Clause 3.
Clause 4 and the First Schedule, which deal with a premium paid to a predecessor of the landlord, are commendable; and so is Clause 5. But I should like to know whether the Government consider it fair that a landlord or outgoing tenant should ever be allowed to make it a condition of the grant or assignment of a tenancy that an incoming tenant must purchase any furniture or fittings at any price whatsoever. Of course, it is a perfectly proper condition to make by agreement between all parties, but is it right that such a condition should be imposed at the unilateral option of the landlord or the outgoing tenant? The two points I wish to emphasise are these. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, the landlord, as well as the tenant, should be entitled to apply to the tribunal to fix a reasonable rent—which may be above the standard rent. That would deal with cases in which people have let their houses since the war for the first time at a rent which was obviously a very small amount. Secondly, under Clause 3, I think that on assignment an assignor should be entitled to recover part of the premium paid in the first instance, whether he has paid that premium to his landlord on the grant or continuation of the tenancy, or to a lessee from whom he took an assignment of the tenancy.
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to join your Lord-
566
ships in an expression of pleasure at seeing the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack restored to health. I am sorry that this afternoon I shall not be crossing swords with him, although I shall have the pleasure of once more enjoying some of the brisk and friendly exchanges in which, in the past, I have indulged with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. Having, as your Lordships may be aware, spoken at considerable length not long ago on a matter closely related to this, and having listened to the full and forcible speeches of previous speakers this afternoon, I do not feel it right to detain your Lordships at any great length now. I hope I shall avoid any mathematical calculations, but at the same time I cannot be expected to respond to those expressions of endearment towards the Bill which we heard from the lips of the noble Lord who moved its Second Reading.
The main purpose of this Bill is to protect a tenant who, through a premium, has been made to pay too much for the accommodation which he has taken. In so far as any premium is extortionate, I gladly and cordially support the principle of this Bill. Indeed, I hope that I am second to no one in condemning rapacity and extortion wherever these may be found, wherever these may exist. I am not conscious of ever having publicly recommended any procedure involving factors such as these, but it does not follow that in considering these matters extortion is always involved. Before the late war, it was the normal and proper thing to sell leasehold properties at a price which W as reflected in a reduction of the rent. Now, under this Bill, such a transaction becomes illegal in the case of a rent-restricted property unless the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value. Perhaps I have not put that clearly, but what I am saying is that if the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value the sale is possible; otherwise it is impossible. That applies however long the lease may be. It seems to me that from this many curious consequences may flow. To one of them the noble Lord, Lord Meson, has called attention. A man has borrowed money, we will say, on a leasehold property. Security for the loan was the price at which the lease could be sold in the market. That security has gone. What is now the position of the mortgagor; and what is the position of the mortgagee?

567
Another problem that presents itself to my mind is this—and if I am at fault through not having digested the Bill as I should have done, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will forgive me. What is the position of a man who has bought a leasehold, who dies, whose estate has paid duty on the market value of the leasehold, and the asset now is valueless because it cannot be sold? I do not know the answer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will be able to provide it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: He gets it back out of the Treasury.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to my noble friend and hope that he is right. It is true, of course, that as the law stands at present there is the possibility of abuse. In particular, it is undesirable that the tail end of a lease should be assigned for value—I am speaking of rent-restricted property—because in such a case there is in fact the transfer of a statutory tenancy. In such a case, the new tenant who has paid the premium will step in for the few months that are left of the short term, and will then himself become the statutory tenant protected under the Rent Restrictions Acts. This may be the very thing which the landlord is anxious to avoid and, as I say, in substance it is a transfer of a statutory tenancy which is at the present moment illegal. But, in order to prevent a transaction of that nature, or in order to curb extortion, I hardly feel it necessary that we should proceed as far as this Bill invites us to go. For, as I have already said, all leases within its ambit, however long their duration, can no longer be bought and sold. Further, its provisions are retrospective for ten years. I venture to think that the majority of your Lordships would, without any qualification, condemn retrospective legislation and would consider that it should never be passed if by any means it could be avoided. It would seem indeed that His Majesty's Government have employed a very powerful long-range weapon to demolish this particular target.
My noble friend, Lord Llewellin, has said that this Bill is a confession of failure on the part of the Government, in so far as their housing policy is concerned. But it is more than that. It must in itself automatically reduce the
568
supply of housing accommodation. It will do so most certainly for three simple reasons. It will do so, first, by extending the protection given to the tenant of furnished rooms; secondly, by depriving the owner of a house of any encouragement to convert it; and, thirdly, by prohibiting the sale of small leases. If we consider the question of the "furnished" tenant, with which my noble friend Lord Llewellin has dealt, we can see the difficulty at once. In matters such as these we are dealing with small things. We are dealing with little people with one or two rooms. The tenant is in close relationship to the landlord, almost a domestic relationship. Is it likely that a man is going to let a room on terms of what one might almost call "family contact" if he can never turn the tenant out? Would it not be far better for him to go without the rent than run the risk of saddling himself with an incubus from which he never could escape?
On the question of conversion, there is, as I understand this Bill, little encouragement for a man who has a large house to subdivide it and to provide additional housing accommodation for the public. Let us imagine a man, a private individual, who owns a house within the ambit of this Bill. He spends substantial money and he splits the house into three flats. We will assume that each one of those flats has a rateable value under £100 a year. What has happened? He has perhaps trebled the accommodation, yet he will have to hand back the premiums which he has charged and out of which alone he can recover the cost of the conversion. It is not very likely that a man will be tempted to split a house up in such circumstances. The noble Lord assures me that the cost of the conversion may be taken into account in assessing the rent. I would remind him, in the first place, that there is no express instruction whatever to the tribunal to do so; moreover, where a man is a private individual the premium which he would receive would be free of tax. He would receive a free of tax payment to cover the cost of splitting up the house. To give him a rental equivalent is to give something upon which income tax and sur-tax may be payable, which is a very different proposition. So it can be seen how this Bill will tend to reduce the amount of accommodation available.

569
Finally and obviously to prevent the selling of small leaseholds would reduce the supply of such leaseholds. That is axiomatic. At present, if a man wants to move from one town to another and go to another employment, he can usually find in the market a leasehold which he can buy. That will not now be possible. All that can now happen is that he will have to exchange. A man who lives in Bedford and wants to go to Oxford will have to advertise and try to find people who will exchange houses with him. There is no other way in which his problem, as I see it, can be resolved, unless he should be lucky enough to find a freehold for sale with vacant possession.
I suggest that these unfortunate consequences which spring from a Bill which, as I have said, has much to commend it, are the inevitable result of piecemeal legislation in this matter of rent restriction. In all seriousness, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—I am sorry that I cannot ask the noble and learned Viscount—why, if we are to nibble at this matter, we must attack it from one side only and never from the other? Why, if we are to have a piecemeal legislation, must it apply only, and must it be right to apply it only, to redress the hardship of the tenant, and be utterly wrong to use it to relieve an injustice where a landlord is concerned? I cannot illustrate this point better than by the question of cost of services. As your Lordships know, the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Ridley presided, recommended as a matter of priority that the increased cost of services should be allowed as an increase under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Every time this has been proposed, the Government have answered that it was impossible because piecemeal legislation was wrong.
To prove my case I have to refer to something that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said, though unfortunately he is not in your Lordships' House at the moment. When this point was raised before, on November 18, 1947, the noble and learned Viscount said:
"We want to follow out the recommendations of the Ridley Report."
He then quotes from the Ridley Report:
"In our opinion, it is urgently necessary that the present chaos of overlapping statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act."
570
He then goes on to quote:
"If this recommendation is not accepted we should have no confidence in putting forward the rest of this Report."
That was the answer—that there must be a single comprehensive measure, and until that, justice could not be done. My Lords, we need not leave this with the noble and learned Viscount. We can reinforce the argument by turning to the Minister of Health—always a fruitful source of support in matters such as this. When this subject was raised in another place it was suggested then that services in regard to rent-restricted property should be dealt with by tribunals—not, one would suppose, a very unreasonable thing to put forward; that tribunals properly elected should settle the cost of those services. What did the Minister of Health say? He said this:
"I am not prepared to allow the tribunal to consider any properties Covered by the Rent Restrictions Act."
He went on to say:
"Once we entered that troubled field we should not know where to stop."
Well, he has spent a good deal of time in that troubled field; and so far as can be seen he is going on spending his time there, because, although both in this House and in another place it has been the declared policy of His Majesty's Government not to legislate piecemeal, they have been doing nothing but tinker with and patch up these Acts ever since.
There is one other matter to which I fear I must refer—namely, that of the tribunals. As your Lordships know, under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act these tribunals can reduce the rent downwards but in no circumstances can they increase it. The same principle, as I understand it, operates hem. If the premium charged was too low owing to circumstances of enemy action or otherwise, there is no means of giving the landlord relief. I have been at some pains in relation to this matter and I have consulted one of your Lordships who has an unrivalled experience, and I invite my noble friend to contradict me, if he can, when I say that never in the history of this country have tribunals been set up which are told to find in one way and never in the other. I would like to ask the noble Lord what the trade unions would say if they were told that their proper and just complaints

571
were to be brought before tribunals instructed that they could reduce wages but, whatever happened, could never increase them. Yet that is the kind of justice we get from His Majesty's Government in matters such as this. I feel that little or no useful purpose would be served by my speaking any further on this subject. To my mind His Majesty's Government have, for a very small advantage, laid themselves open to the accusation of injustice. Much, indeed, will have to be said in Committee. I can only hope that when that stage is reached the Government will show themselves willing to accept such modifications of this Bill as it is right and reasonable for your Lordships to demand.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I find this Bill a very difficult one on which to comment. As many of your Lordships have said, many of the provisions are most welcome, but it is difficult to welcome them in their present context. There is a temptation to range over the whole subject of the Rent Restrictions Acts, but I must avoid it. I cannot, however, refrain from making a short reference to the end of the debate which we had recently on the Motion in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master. I listened with great attention to what was then said by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack on the subject of the new scheme of rent control which was proposed some years ago by the Committee of which I was Chairman. When the noble and learned Viscount replied to the suggestion that a new system was required, he spoke of the matter in terms of consolidation of the existing Acts, and he used some such phrase as: "We cannot consolidate, because there is need to change." But the whole basis of the Report which this Committee made some years ago was that it was not consolidation which was required; it was not extension of the present Acts which was required, it was an entirely new Act, leaving out, perhaps, 80 per cent. of the mass of legislation which at present exists.
There was recommended some maintenance of control, based on a rational system of estimating what the rent should be, in fairness to both parties and, particularly in the present circumstances,
572
which may continue for some time, with the object of protecting the tenants from exorbitant demands. I feel that the present Act, although it contains provisions which will do good (provisions which were recommended by our Committee), will, on the whole, make the general situation more difficult. I think it is the twelfth in the series of Acts, all of which refer to earlier Acts, and all of which have to be understood and followed by those concerned in matters of this sort.
The different bases of assessing the rents of houses under Clause 1 of this Bill are, indeed, almost ridiculous. Up to now, the 1939 Act, which deals with houses let since that date, is one basis of settling the rent. By that Act the standard rent is either the rent payable at that date, or the rent at which the house was first let after that date. That series of provisions is to be modified by adjustment, downwards, which will be made by a tribunal. All the other houses within the various Rent Restrictions Acts are controlled at a level which is based on the rent at which they were let, some many, many years ago. How we can ever think there can be fairness as between one tenant and another and, on the other hand, as between one landlord and another, in a system of that sort, is entirely incomprehensible to me. Indeed, if one looks carefully enough, I believe it is possible to find cases where the rent of a house is based on the figure at which it was first let before the beginning of this century. Moreover, when one sees the proposals in Clause 1 for varying rents, it makes one think that it is almost "shabby" to start tinkering with and adjusting such a small number of the rents. It is doing the work by small instalments, and making it more difficult as one goes along.
As to the question of the one-way decision by the tribunal, there is what seems to me a very odd statement in Clause 1 (1). Whatever the tribunal consider a reasonable rent they must communicate to the tenant. Following that, it is stated that only if that reasonable rent is less than the present rent is there to be a change. The tribunal is capable only of reducing, and not of increasing, the rent on an application. What I do not understand is why, having that in mind, they should com-

573
municate to a tenant the rent which they think reasonable. According to the words that follow, if they think the rent is reasonable, but it is more than the tenant is at present paying, the Bill has no effect, and it does not matter whether the tribunal think the rent reasonable or not. That is, perhaps, a matter merely of the wording, but it is a statement which has puzzled me ever since I first saw it.
One must admit that the function of these tribunals is not quite the same as those dealing with furnished houses. There is no need for the tribunal to be able to increase rents of furnished houses, because those rents are not controlled; only applications for reduction are made, since the landlord of a furnished house has no difficulty in increasing the rent. If the tenant applies to the tribunal and the rent is reduced, of course, that condition no longer applies. It has generally been held that the reason why a tribunal should not be empowered to increase the rent of a furnished letting is probably adequate. But I cannot see, under this clause, the argument on which that one-way application of the determination is based.
It has been admitted, I think, by all Parties, that there are cases where inability to raise rents has led to hardships on the owners of the property. The present Bill does nothing to help overcome that difficulty. Even if it is held that the ownership of property deserves no encouragement or reward, I think there is another way of looking at it—namely, as a matter of public policy and interest. If it is a fact that in many cases the rent which is being paid is not adequate to enable the owner to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, surely that is a matter of the most vital importance. I remember that some live years ago, when our Committee were at work, we had a good deal of evidence to that effect, and we all know that the cost of building materials and labour has considerably increased since that date. Indeed, is there not some evidence of that in the new Housing Bill, which, I understand, is being introduced in another place, and which offers subsidies at the public expense for the modernisation and repair of houses which have fallen into a bad state? Is it not probable that many such houses have fallen into a bad state through lack of
574
repair, and that in a number of cases that is quite probably due to the fact that the rents paid are not sufficient to enable the owners to keep them in good repair? Would it not have been better to ensure that the rent met the cost of repairs, even if it left nothing over by way of a return for the investment of the owner of the property?
One cannot deny that the universal raising of rents under any legislation proposed for rent restriction would inflict considerable hardship on a number of tenants. I do not think that anyone would support such increases at the present time. But I do think that tribunals concerned with unfurnished lettings should be able to deal with the most extreme cases, where houses are in fact suffering from lack of repair. On that point, it is interesting to note that under the 1939 Act to which this present Bill applies, there is no mechanism—I think I am right in saying—whereby the tenant can apply for a reduction of rent owing to lack of repairs. If such a provision had been included in the 1939 Act, as it was in some of the earlier Acts, it would be perfectly logical to say, on the one hand, that the tenant has a right to reduction of rent if the house is not kept in a proper state of repair and, on the other, that the landlord or owner has a right to a rent adequate to enable him to keep the house in order so long as he is willing to do so, but that if he does not do so his rent will be reduced. I would like to see a clause to that effect inserted in this Bill, followed by an alteration in this clause allowing for raising of rents in appropriate cases. I do not know how many such cases there would be under this Bill which, of course, applies only to post-1939 houses. There would probably be only a small number of houses for which it would be justifiable to claim increases. Houses were let at the beginning of the war, when the air raids started, in areas where people would not normally be anxious to let, and they were let cheaply at that time. The inclusion in this Bill of some provision to sort out rents, I should have thought, would be the introduction to bringing into some sort of relationship all houses which come under the earlier Acts, and so removing the worst of the anomalies.

575
With reference to the question of premiums, I regret taking up such an attitude, but I consider that if the Government had listened to our Committee three years ago all premiums would have been made illegal at that time, and it would not have been necessary to introduce now legislation which is, in fact, retrospective. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in his dextrous mental arithmetic (at least it was mental arithmetic for your Lordships), touched upon cases of premiums for all houses let for, I think, seven years. Such a demand for a premium was, and is, illegal in respect of houses which come within the scope of the Acts. As I understand Clause 2, it applies to premiums on houses let for fourteen years or over, which was legal and is legal up to the present time. With regard to extortionate premiums illegally charged, I think there is no question but that every member of your Lordships' House would support a system designed to get something back from them.
It is a little more difficult, when one considers a premium which was legally charged on a lease granted for fourteen years or more, and which was not in fact extortionate. Unless I have misunderstood this, it seems to me that Clause 2 allows the tenant to get back a premium which is not here defined as extortionate and was at the time of payment a legal premium. Furthermore, such determination of a tribunal for the repayment of the premium is made independently of the rent which the tenant is paying. Therefore it is not possible to say: "Yes, you may have paid a premium but your rent is very low, so that is all right"; or to say: "You are paying a high rent and you paid a high premium; therefore you will get some of it back." It is a simple statement: "As you paid a premium you will get it back in a certain way." It is well known that in a number of cases it suited the tenant as well as the owner to pay a modest premium (here again I would be strongly against an excessive premium) and a low rent, rather than to pay no premium and a high rent which would by itself have been proper. While the intention behind the clause is one which I should applaud, owing to the fact that it is retrospective and irrespective of the rent actually paid and, so far as I can see, irrespective of whether
576
a premium is excessive or not, it seems to me a rather clumsy method of doing what might have been done three years ago with a great deal more simplicity.
May I now refer to the clause on furnished tenancies, whereby tribunals may extend the right of occupation? In the original Furnished Dwellings Act, which applied only to Scotland, and in the later Act which was a copy and applied to the rest of the country, there is the same provision that the tribunal may order up to three months' occupancy if there is a determination of rent. When our Committee sat, we took a good deal of evidence of the work done up till then by the Scottish tribunals. So far as I can remember, the number of people who gave evidence and suggested that security of tenure should be increased beyond three months was very small. There were a few. It is significant also to remember that the question of security of tenure of furnished rooms was considered not only by this Committee but also by two previous Committees. They all came to the same conclusion and advised against any excessive control of the freedom of movement in and out of furnished rooms.
This is not a matter between a landlord on the one hand, as a person one thinks of as holding an investment in property, and a defenceless tenant on the other. Nine times out of ten it is a matter between two people in very similar financial positions, occupations and way of living, one of whom has a house and the other shares part of it. If they fall out and start to take legal proceedings on matters of occupancy, situations of the greatest difficulty can be created in the day to day relations of one set of human beings and another set living under the same roof. I think it is asking for trouble between individuals to go so far as is here suggested. Had it been said that on an application to the tribunal a further three months could be given (I think it can be argued either way whether three months or six months is the better) it would be different. But under this clause the extension can go on for ever. There is no limit to the number of times a tenant of furnished rooms can go to the tribunal and get an extension. I think that is going to create more personal difficulties than it will solve.
I have seen it stated that in these days housing should be a service provided by

577
the Government and local authorities rather than a matter for investment and return on that investment. But in legislating we do not want to run the risk of ignoring the fact that there are actually in existence houses still owned by individuals, corporations and companies. While that state of affairs exists, legislation should be careful to see that it is kept going for so long as it is necessary to retain it. There is no doubt that every house decently habitable is necessary at the present time. Is it not a reflection on the present state of the rent restriction laws, including the present Bill, that the more it becomes national policy for local authorities to build a larger number of houses and to become landlords of a larger number of people, the more attractive relatively it becomes for the tenant, if he has arty choice, not to live in a local authority house excluded from these Acts?
Seven or eight times out of ten a tenant has a lower rent, often lower than that of a pre-war house built by a local authority and certainly lower than that of a house built by a local authority or anybody else since the war. In a house under private ownership he has security of tenure under these Acts and has his rent controlled. Furthermore, under these Acts he has a legal claim to have his house repaired and to withhold his rent if it is not repaired. Therefore, by leaving local authority houses out of these Acts, which I think is inevitably the thing to do, we are making it more and more attractive to people with any choice not to live in local authority houses. It almost seems to me that by allowing policy to go in this direction the Government are defeating their own object of extending the number of houses which local authorities own and manage.
I think this whole legislation is too difficult, too rigid and too complicated. I fear that the method by which the provisions of the Bill have been put together, presented and added to existing legislation will add to their complication and difficulty. There are various details in the Bill which make the actual particulars of the control of rent even more rigid than some of the provisions in the previous Acts. If this Bill is passed as it is, it will make it even more necessary to scrap the whole lot and start again with a new measure, taking the best out of them all and modifying them
578
into a reasonable system. I do not think any of us would wish to oppose the Bill, because the provisions about premiums, applications to tribunals and other necessary matters are going to be to the benefit of tenants. I regret, however, that the Bill has the blemishes I have suggested. I regret still more the fact that an attempt is being made to continue fiddling about with these complicated Acts, and that the Government have not faced up to confining them in one useful measure. If the matter were approached from the beginning, I do not believe that it would be anything like so difficult or intricate as is often supposed.
4.30 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the general tone of the discussion, and for the way in which the Bill has been received. I asked for enthusiasm, but I do not think that I succeeded in eliciting that. The Minister of Health, who looms so large in the minds, sleeping and waking, of your Lordships, called for amiability; and where my blandishments have failed he appears to have succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, set a very amiable tone. I do not think the House would wish a Minister who is not departmentally concerned with a Bill of this kind to attempt to go into great detail at this stage. I am sure that the right course for me is to consider carefully with my advisers and, where proper, with the Minister, everything that has been said to-day, rather than to chance my arm and attempt to deal in a perfunctory way with points raised by those who have given much thought to them. I would, however, touch on one or two points that have been raised by different speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether by this Bill a landlord can find out from a tribunal what rent he would be allowed to charge if he built a house or converted an existing house into flats. The answer is that he cannot find that out in advance under the Bill, but he will be told by the local authority what rent he can charge when he receives a licence under the Housing Act. That is provided by the Housing Bill which is now being considered in another place.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I just ask whether that decision by the local authority will be binding in any way on the tribunal?
LORD PAKENHAM: I would like to go into that matter further. I am advised that the answer meets the main point that appeared to be in the noble Lord's mind, and I am hopeful that in fact it does so. The noble Lord also suggested that a time limit should be placed on the period during which an application can be made to the tribunal for the consideration of a premium. That is something which I will place before my right honourable friend, and we can perhaps discuss it before we reach another stage of the Bill. The noble Lord was inclined to the view that the operation of the Bill might be limited to five years. Surely he would agree that the Bill should run for a period corresponding to the period for which the Rent Acts run. Those Acts expire six months after an Order in Council is made declaring that the emergency is at an end. It would seem desirable that this Bill should run for a corresponding period. I need hardly say that we are all as anxious as the noble Lord that that day will come soon. I will return at the end of my speech to the implication in the more general remarks of the noble Lord, when he said that this Bill—I do not for one moment agree with him—is evidence that the Government admit that they have failed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Evidence of their success!
LORD PAKENHAM: I give way to the noble Viscount, but unless he is being ironical I do not follow him. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that to bring forward this Bill was evidence of failure. I will rebut that with some vigour when I reach my concluding remarks.
LORD LLEWELLIN: What I was saying was that deeds are more effective than words. This is the deed.
LORD PAKENHAM: The Bill appears to be a deed—a deed which the noble Lord is ready to support at this stage. I entirely agree with the remark the noble Lord has just made to the House, but it seems to me slightly less original than the remarks to which we usually look forward with such pleasure from him. We all agree that deeds are more helpful in this physical sphere than words.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised a number of intricate points which I would like to consider carefully. He
580
appeared to be under one possible misapprehension. Since no houses were built during the war, only owner-occupiers could let their houses for the first time. There can, therefore, be only a very limited number of such cases, and certainly not sufficient to justify a measure allowing for the possibility of increases in rents of houses let for the first time since 1939. The noble Lord made a number of other points which I would desire to consider at rather greater length. I would just mention one comparatively minor suggestion of his. He would like to leave out from Clause 3 the words. "if it is so agreed." I am doubtful whether there is much in that point, but we will certainly look into it, and it may be that something can be done to meet the noble Lord.
The noble Viscounts, Lord Buckmaster and Lord Ridley, both spoke with eloquence and knowledge from a certain point of view. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, appeared still to be smarting under rebukes by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on an earlier occasion, but I do not think he departed at all from his spirit of amiability. I can only repeat to him some of what the noble and learned Viscount said on the last occasion, although perhaps adding one quotation from Tom Paine—not a writer with whom I have otherwise a great deal of sympathy. The noble Viscount may remember that Tom Paine said of Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution:
"He pitied the plumage and forgot the dying bird."
If I may say so, the noble Viscount is in danger of pitying the landlord and forgetting the poor tenant.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: With great respect to my noble friend, in the first place, I do not think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor ever rebuked me—he disagreed with me. In the second place, I do not forget the tenant. What I ask is that the scales of justice should be held equally.
LORD PAKENHAM: There again I think the noble Viscount has given voice to a sentiment which is completely impeccable. So far as that goes, again, we are all at one. Unfortunately, circumstances have favoured the landlord, and we are in that sense redressing the un-

581
fair balance which has been established by circumstances over which we have had no control. The landlord has had a pretty good time these last few years. I speak as a very small landlord—I happen to own a few cottages—but as one who at the moment is certainly paying more in repairs than he is getting in rents. If it is thought that the landlord has not had a good time, let me turn to the value of property. I find that the selling prices of houses with vacant possession in 1948 exceeded the 1939 level by approximately 250 per cent.; and without vacant possession they exceeded the 1939 level by 95 per cent. These figures are based on records of the Valuation Office, Board of Inland Revenue. The cost of living index rose between 1914 and 1937 by about 100 per cent., and the index of retail prices has shown an increase of 9 per cent. since then. I am bound to say that most people who were landlords before the war, and are landlords now, are richer men in relation to the rest of the community than they were at that time. I should have thought that that was something which could hardly be disputed.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Lord makes a general statement which admits a number of particular cases which are not the same. What the noble Lord says is perfectly true in a large number of cases, but what I would emphasise is that among the public at large there are certainly a number of landlords who are unable to maintain their property—I would not say the majority.
LORD PAKENHAM: If they were hit as hard as the noble Lord suggests, it would usually be possible for them to sell the property.
LORD LLEWELLIN: They have been giving property away in Glasgow. It is true that some landlords who have been able to give vacant possession of their property have found that its value has appreciated. But the landlords being discussed to-day are those who own rent-restricted houses. They cannot give vacant possession of their property, and those are the people to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was referring.
LORD PAKENHAM: The figures supplied to me—which I have no reason
582
to question—give a figure of 95 per cent. as the increase since 1939, even without vacant possession.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely the noble Lord realises that one cannot draw a general conclusion from an agglomeration of particular instances. A number of landlords have done very well, and a number have done extraordinarily badly. It is being suggested that, while it is quite right to deal with the landlord who has done very well it, will also not be unreasonable to deal with the landlord who is doing very badly, and have equal justice all round. The noble Lord might as well say that, because a large number of profits have been made by private enterprise and large losses by nationalised industries, the whole lot should be lumped together.
LORD MESTON: You cannot sell a rent-controlled house full of tenants at any price. If any noble Lord contradicts that, all I can say is that his name must be Herodotus.
LORD PAKENHAM: In that case, I am prepared to accept the classical title given me by the noble Lord, because I was making inquiries this morning—
VISCOUNT SIMON: He was the father of history.
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, and I suggest he is the father of something else as well! If the noble Lord is offering it as a compliment, I accept it, not only with amiability—to use the current word—but enthusiasm. The simple fact is of course, that if this were an Act for lowering some rents and raising other rents, it would be an Act which would fall hardly on many tenants. The simple fact of which the House is well aware, is that at the present time there is a grave shortage of houses, and tenants are suffering through no fault of their own. This is an Act to help the tenants. If people can think of legitimate proposals for helping the landlords the Government will always be ready to consider them. But this is an Act to help tenants, and I would be humbugging the House if I attempted to conceal that purpose from your Lordshps.
I am glad to find that this Bill has the broad approval of noble Lords, and certainly of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. The noble Lord said that he was not going to divide the House on the Second

583
Reading, so its general purpose is one which the noble Lord entirely endorses. It is really what I may call the wing forwards of the Party who have descended upon this Bill. I am not sure they have not followed the habit of getting off-side; and I am not sure that they may not have to be sent off the field. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, if I may put it in a personal way, seems to have taken the place in the Conservative Party which I myself vacated some years ago.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, of course, has the highest claims to speak on this subject to the House, and I can well understand his becoming a little fretful, while remaining amiable, that his Report has not been carried into legislation. I once helped with a Report which your Lordships may remember, the Beveridge Report. As soon as that was published we all became excited because it was not at once carried into legislation. But it has now reached the Statute Book, through the help of the Lord Chancellor and others, and with the co-operation of this House. The noble Viscount, therefore, should not despair in this matter, because the Government accept in principle the main recommendation that there is need for a consolidating Act. But I can only repeat what the Lord Chancellor said last time—and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, did not dissent from it today—that preparation is necessary. We cannot just add the present Acts together, and tell the draftsmen to get to work. It is necessary to revise and reform before this great Act comes forward, and surely the noble Viscount will agree that it will be a most complicated business when it comes, for which there is not time at this moment. But without any doubt whatever, the time will come.
I do not think your Lordships would wish me to attempt to deal with all the intricate points raised this afternoon. I hope the House will think that I am accessible throughout all stages of this Bill, as we always are, whether by private or public discussion. I would just allude, as I close, to the remarks, friendly and perhaps even humorous, of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, about the situation. When I say "humorous," I do not mean that he faces at all lightly, any more than
584
I do, the housing shortage in the country. But he poked a little fun at us for bringing forward a Bill which seemed to admit that the Government's housing policy had not succeeded. I do not think it is ever wise in the course of a struggle to say that one has conquered or that one has succeeded. Therefore, I will not say that the Government's housing policy has succeeded. I will say only that it bids fair to succeed.
The House is fond—noble Lords opposite in particular—of quoting from the Minister of Health, and, making use of the same licence, I would refer to the speech that he made in moving the Second Reading of the Housing Bill in another place on March 16. He made the very strong point that, so far as one could judge, there are more homes per head of the population to-day than there were in 1939, so that we have already begun to improve on the 1938–39 position. That is surely something which the House might ponder upon, and upon which the Government and all those who have helped the Government, whatever their Party, should clearly be congratulated. It may be asked: How does that square with this assertion that there is a housing shortage? That seems to be a reasonable point to be brought up in reply. Again I ask permission to quote the Minister of Health. He is quoted very often—sometimes, I am sure, not quite in the way he would select.
I venture to refer noble Lords to his speech where he points out that there are three reasons why, in spite of the fact that there are more homes per head, there are these long queues of people wanting houses. First of all, people are getting married earlier than they were; secondly, the old people are anxious to live in their homes and are showing a certain resolution to-day in requesting to be allowed to continue in their homes in the autumn of their days, rather than be forced to go and live with relatives. Thirdly, more people than ever before have money in their pockets, and people are therefore able to ask for houses who were not able to ask before. There are the considerations which the Minister of Health has put forward.
The facts are hardly in dispute. They appear to be that between June, 1939, and December, 1948, the population in

585
England and Wales increased by 1,750,000. It appears that approximately 560,000 additional homes have been provided, and, taking the generally accepted view of 3.5 persons to the family, we have provided for just under 2,000,000 persons; so in fact we are rather better placed per head than before the war. Nevertheless there is a grave shortage of houses and people are not adequately housed at the present time, in spite of the fact that the Government have done more, and have helped the country to do more, than was expected or than has ever before been accomplished immediately after a great war. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, stressed so much the comparison between the last year before the war and the most recent years. Obviously a comparison of that kind is hardly one he would care to push very far.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that the whole of the building industry was far better organised after this war than it was after the 1914–18 war. I have always stood up for the noble Viscount the present Leader of the House; he had a much more difficult position to deal with than had the Minister of Health after this war. If we were building 350,000 houses a year, as we were, just before the war, I should have expected that that position would have been reached again four years after the end of the war.
LORD PAKENHAM: We have only the comparison between the two periods. I myself believe that we should have had still more houses at this time if the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, had been Minister of Health, because I think he would have made the best Minister of Health. We have had the second best one as it is. I do not mind where that reaches, because I am not going to accept any possible implied reflection on my noble friend the Leader of the House. He did all that was possible. But the Minister of Health, who is much criticised in this House, has, in my opinion, done a first-class job. I frankly believe that some noble Lords will look rather foolish for having criticised the Minister of Health so much, because in regard both to the Health Scheme and to housing he will have the last laugh—and, on the whole, it will be a laugh in which the whole country can join. I hear
586
mumbles, but I do not associate them with the noble Viscount. When all is said and done, the housing shortage is still grave. But a great deal has been accomplished, and I myself think that in this great task the whole country can go forward together to a conclusion which most of us expect will be much happier than appeared likely a few years ago.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL
4.55 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. In doing so, I would recall that this Bill, which is a landmark in the history of Newfoundland, received a Second Reading last week with the good will of all sides of the House. This historic Island for hundreds of years has been developed by people of our stock. In those early days it was the gateway to great undiscovered lands. Now, it is the neighbour of a great Federation derived from British and French stock which stretches for thousands of miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and which has become the home of a great and growing nation, with all the power that comes from the joining together of their vast Provinces. This Bill marks the fact that by their own wish, and with the good will of others, the citizens of Newfoundland are to join with the other Provinces of this great Federation, with all the rights of a great Province. It is, I think, a farseeing and wise decision that will fortify the strength of Newfoundland, that will extend the bounds of benefit and opportunity for all its citizens, and that will assure the liberties that are enshrined in this Bill for the people in Newfoundland in a wider and stronger association. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
4.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will wish to be associated with the message of good will and Godspeed to the people of Newfoundland which has been so happily expressed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Newfoundland has a long and brave history of which its people are rightly proud, and for which we in this country have often had cause to be grateful.
"All their past proclaims their future,"
and they will maintain their vigour and increase their strength in the great Dominion they are now about to join. And as the Commonwealth, with all its freedom and independence, draws—as I am sure it will—ever closer together in the face of common dangers and in the solution of common problems, the association of the people of the new Province of Newfoundland with the Old Country will be as close in reality and in affection as ever it has been in the past.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we on these Benches should not like this moment to pass without offering our earnest and cordial good wishes on the achievement of the purpose contained in this Bill. There have been few more striking developments in the last quarter of a century than the expansion and advance of Canada to the status of a Great Power; and any country, even with the long and honourable tradition of Newfoundland behind it, may well take the view that now voluntarily to accede as a Province to that great Dominion is a source alike of privilege and of pride.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

JURIES BILL
5.0 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Payments in respect of jury service
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, persons who serve as jurors shall be entitled to be paid, in accordance with prescribed scales and subject to any prescribed conditions,—

(a) travelling and subsistence allowances; and

(b) compensation for loss of earnings which they would otherwise have made or additional expense (other than expense on account of travelling or subsistence) to which
588
they would not otherwise have been subject, being loss or expense necessarily suffered or incurred for the purpose of enabling them to serve as jurors:

VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "additional" to insert "loss or." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of the two Amendments which I put down during the Committee stage. It was then received sympathetically as a suggestion by the noble Lord opposite, although he naturally asked for time in which to consider it more particularly. My concern was, and is, to make sure that those citizens who are called upon to serve on a jury should be fairly dealt with out of public funds in respect of the losses they suffer, whether those individuals are employed by somebody else or whether they are persons who are earning their income in what is called self-employment.
I gave the example of the small farmer or the small shopkeeper who is not carrying on business through others, but is looking after his own enterprise day by day. If such an individual is summoned to serve on a jury, we should all agree that it is important that he should be fairly dealt with under the excellent arrangements proposed for compensating jurors when they undertake work for the whole community and incur special losses thereby. Therefore, I have put down my Amendment again, although I have had a communication from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is in charge of the Bill, explaining his attitude to this matter after further inquiry. I am not going to challenge what I understand he is about to say, but I think it is important to mention it, because it is necessary that citizens should be reassured that the scheme of this Bill is one which does not merely compensate those who suffer loss of earnings in the sense of loss of payment made by an employer, but covers also the citizen who is made to suffer in pocket because the enterprise upon which he is engaged cannot be carried on equally to his advantage while he is engaged on this important duty. I beg to move this Amendment in order that the House may have a statement from the noble Lord opposite.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("additional") insert ("loss or").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, when this matter was discussed here during the Committee stage, I indicated that the phrase "loss of earnings" seemed to be perfectly general in its character and not limited, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested was a possible interpretation, to earnings by an employee. I am glad to say that after further discussions I am assured that that is so, and that this phrase applies to a farmer or to a shopkeeper, or to any other person who, carrying on business on his own account, by reason of his absence on jury service has been injured and has less money available from the proceeds of his business than he would have had if he had not been so occupied with his jury service. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation just as much as if he were a wage earner. That can and will be made quite clear to clerks of assize and clerks of the peace by an administrative circular in due course.
It may be said: "Well, if it is clear, let us put it into the Bill." But there is a reason which I think your Lordships will agree is a good one why, in my submission, it would be a mistake to write it into the Bill; that is, that these words as they here appear were inserted in Section 112 of the Local Government Act of 1948. If words such as the noble and learned Viscount suggests were now inserted in this Bill, it would convey the impression that the words in the Local Government Act did not go so far as these do. Therefore, a situation of doubt would be immediately caused. I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that that would be unfortunate. I hope that, as the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, he will be prepared to accept this assurance.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord opposite. If I may say so, I think he has made a most useful statement. Any anxiety which was entertained—and I confess that I shared it—is largely removed. It is important that in practice the view which I think we share on both sides of the Table is insisted upon. Although I was not aware of the fact, I think it is material to observe that since this exact phrase occurs in the Local Government Act of last year it would be manifestly unfortunate if we were to introduce a variant in the present Bill which might lead, according to the
590
method of argument which some of us employ, to too narrow a construction being placed upon the phrase as it already exists in the Statute Book. On those grounds, and thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18:
Abolition of special juries.
18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section no issue or question shall be tried or determined after the end of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by a special jury and no person shall be summoned to serve as a special juror for the trial or determination after the end of that month of an Issue or question, but where, but for the passing of this Act, an issue or question would fall to be tried or determined after the end of that month by a special jury it shall be tried or determined by a common jury:
Provided that—
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "common jury" and insert "jury other than a special jury." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of two or three Amendments, which are all consequential, which carry out in what I am advised is a better form the same proposal that I made on the Committee stage. I have hopes that the words now proposed will be acceptable to the Government. Here again, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on behalf of the Government, expressed his sympathy with the idea that I had in my head. It is all very well to talk about two classes of jury—a common jury and a special jury—when you really have two classes, but one of the main objects of this Bill, broadly speaking, is to abolish special juries. When they are abolished, it seems a little odd to go on calling the surviving category by a special phrase like "common jury"—not that there is anything necessarily objectionable in being "common," but at least it is one word too many. As the Amendment I am now moving and the consequential Amendments are drawn, and as they now appear on the Order Paper, I believe that they carry out that purpose in the appropriate way. I hope that we may hear from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government that he accepts the suggestion that we need no longer label the standard jury by an epithet which, although not necessarily opprobrious, is

591
at any rate unnecessary; and, in that event, the fewer words the better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("common jury") and insert ("jury other than a special jury").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as I indicated on the last occasion, the Government have every sympathy with the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount tabled, and indeed they are obliged to him for his action in so doing. I said then that there might be some technical hitch which would not enable us to put it into this Bill. However, I am glad to say that we have been able to overcome that, and the discussions that I have had with the noble and learned Viscount have enabled us to reach a form of wording which is entirely satisfactory to the Government. Therefore, I have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment and those that follow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:
Discontinuance of terms "common jury" and "common juror".
". As from the expiration of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the expressions 'common jury' and 'common juror' shall cease to be used."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 29, to insert as a new clause:
Discontinuance of terms "common jury" and "common juror".
". As from the expiration of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the expressions 'common jury' and 'common juror' shall cease to be used."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the face of it, this might appear to be saying the same thing over again, but it is not in fact so, because Part I of the Bill deals with England and Part II deals with Scotland. This is an occasion when Parliament is doing exactly the same for both England and Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, after Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [English Enactments Repealed]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments which are necessitated by an oversight in the Schedule as originally drafted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 26, after ("and") insert (", in the first place where they occur,").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 8, leave out ("and thirty-three") and insert (" , thirty-three and thirty-five").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.10 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).

SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order.)

STORAGE OF GRAIN
5.12 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide adequate accommodation for the storage of grain. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I ask the Question which stands in my name, I should like to make one or two suggestions to the noble Earl who is to reply, and also to get from the Government a statement as to whether or not they take any responsibility for the storage of grain or have any intention of

593
helping the farmer in providing storage for grain. At the moment I do not know. I hope that if the Government have come to a decision they will have borne in mind two factors: first of all, the seriousness of the problem created with the great increase in the number of combines in use throughout the country, with the result that a good deal more grain than before is being threshed at harvest time and some place has to be found to store it. Last year there were in use in the country 6,400 combine harvesters. It is estimated that the year after next there will be over 11,000, so your Lordships will see that the problem is becoming more acute, and I think that the Government as well as the farmer have an interest in ensuring that the grain is adequately stored. Secondly, as the result of the maintenance of tillage directions and the encouragement given by the Government to farmers to grow cereals, many farmers are cropping their land in a way which they hope will not continue indefinitely, and it would be a mistake to ask those farmers to spend a good deal of money on putting up storage accommodation for a purpose which they hope will not continue for long.
The right place to store grain is on the farm, rather than that the Ministry of Food or some other ministerial Department should take it over at harvest time. Indeed, many farmers would be unwilling to sell their grain to the Ministry of Food at harvest time. It will also save both labour and transport if the grain can be stored where it is threshed and can go from there straight to the miller. With this in view, I should like to make one or two suggestions to the noble Earl. First, would it not be possible for the Government to include in the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill some provision whereby either an individual farmer or a farmers' co-operative society could get either a loan or a grant, or a combination of both, which would enable them to put up some sort of storage barn or shed? Perhaps it would be possible to do this rather on the lines that are already in the Bill with regard to grass dryers. I realise, of course, that this would be a long-term policy, because licences, men and material will take some time to obtain and, indeed, it would probably not be economical for smaller farmers to build these stores.
Therefore, my second suggestion is with regard to the short-term policy. Could not the Government, or the Ministry of Agriculture in particular, either erect new buildings or requisition old buildings which would be suitable for the storage of grain and let those buildings direct, either to individual farmers or to farmer co-operatives, to store their grain? In my own county, and I have no doubt in many others, there are a good many airfields with excellent hangars and other buildings which, with a little conversion, could be used for this purpose. My third suggestion is that I hope the noble Earl and the Ministry of Agriculture will see that the National Agricultural Advisory Service is used to the full in giving advice to farmers in regard to this problem. Also, I hope it might be possible for the Farm Buildings Advisory Service to prepare a simple and a flexible plan for a shed or store which could be adapted to suit almost every circumstance. Lastly, I would ask the noble Earl whether he has any statement to make on the results of the deputation from the National Farmers' Union which went to him on this subject in January. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
5.18 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with regard to the storage of grain is an extremely complicated one. As the noble Lord will know, all imported grain has to be stored, and at present we have to hold much larger stocks of grain than ever we held before the war. By far the greater bulk of grain storage is in private hands. It consists of the big silos of the millers and of the maltsters, and of the big silos at the ports. They hold the large proportion of all our stocks of grain at the moment. But in addition to these privately owned silos, there are, of course, the Ministry of Food silos, sixteen in number, which hold about 5,000 tons each. These are equipped with the latest machinery for drying grain, and they dry at the rate of about ten tons an hour. In addition, there are what are called "buffer depots" all over the country, to which the dried grain can be sent if necessary. It has been found up to date that the storage

595
capacity of the privately-owned storages and of the Ministry of Food silos and depôts has been sufficient to take in all the grain that has come forward.
But the particular point which is obviously of concern to the noble Lord is that of the combined grain—the fact that we have so many combines in the agricultural field bringing more grain into hand at one particular moment for sale or to be stored. That is the big problem. But I think we must keep a sense of proportion in regard to this matter, because the bulk of the grain is still stored in stacks and will continue to be so stored. I should like to quote one or two figures to illustrate this point. In 1948, about 8,000,000 tons of grain of all kinds—wheat, barley, oats, rye and mixed corn—were produced in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that rather more than 1,000,000 tons were harvested by combines. By 1952, we expect, in view of the agricultural expansion programme, that about 8,500,000 tons—that is assuming normal yields—will be harvested, of which about 1,750,000 tons may be cut by combines. Therefore, the real problem which we have to consider is how this additional 750,000 tons can be handled.
As noble Lords will realise, it is impossible to estimate these things exactly. The harvests, the weather, and a hundred other different factors all come into play, and may increase or decrease the amount of grain on hand. Although the point that combines bring in more threshed grain at one particular moment is of great importance, there are on the other hand counter factors to be considered. Farmers are now allowed to keep as much oats and barley as they wish to use for feeding their livestock. They are also allowed to keep 25 per cent. of their wheat. This will be a very strong inducement to them to keep grain, or a certain amount of it, on the farm. Further, we have a scale of prices which encourages the farmer to retain his grain for a while—the longer he keeps it, the more he is likely to get for it. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be most advisable for farmers to consider installing additional storage facilities on their own premises—whatever units they may choose. To put it another way, this is fundamentally a problem for the farmers and the trade. The Government storage can take only
596
a certain proportion of the total amount of grain, and it cannot cope with the big increase that is envisaged. So this is a matter upon which the trade and the farmers should get together, with a view to working out a solution of the problem.
I do not wish to give the impression, from anything I have said, that His Majesty's Government are not extremely interested and deeply concerned about the matter. They certainly are. Indeed, they have been worried over this problem for a considerable time, and they have under consideration plans for an extension of the storage and drying facilities provided at the national silos. However, it is unlikely that the present capacity of the silos, 80,000 tons, will be increased by more than 10,000 tons by the 1950 harvest. A number of details have yet to be settled before a final decision in this matter can be taken—such as, for example, the most economical size of unit, and the best places in which to install the units. There will have to be conversations with the farming and commercial interests to see that our plans dovetail in with theirs. That much is in hand, but I would point out that this extension to the existing national silo system is intended only to supplement Government facilities for storage, and it should not prevent people going ahead with their own plans for storing grain—whether those concerned are farmers or business people in the trade.
I would like now to refer to one or two ideas which I think may prove helpful. We have found that well-ventilated bins will keep grain for about two to three months, provided that the grain is combined at the right time, and I can assure the noble Lord who raised this question that the fullest advice on this point will be given to farmers by the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Farmers will, in fact, receive all the help that the Government can give in connection with the general problem. The question as to the possibility of a grant being given for putting up sheds is clearly one which will have to be considered. I cannot give any answer on that matter now.
As to the designing of special buildings, that is certainly a very interesting idea, which will also have to be considered. Whether we shall do anything about it

597
or not I cannot say at the moment, but I must admit that I am not very hopeful on that particular subject. But as I have indicated, His Majesty's Government are deeply interested in the whole matter. I would like to point out that the Ministry of Food are fully prepared to sponsor any reasonable requests from the trade—that is, from maltsters, millers or others—for building additional storage spaces, while any reasonable request by farmers or on the part of buyers will be given most sympathetic consideration by my own Department. In conclusion, I should like to say that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised this question. It is a matter of the keenest interest to us. As I have said, however, I think that the real onus lies with the farmers and the trade to supply the answer to this problem.
5.26 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all greatly indebted to the noble Earl for the full reply which he has given to this question. It is a reply which will be of great value to farmers and others throughout the country. He has said that the Government have been worried over this matter for some time, and I recall that it gave me a certain amount of anxiety when I was Minister of Food. At that time, we were importing a lot of combine harvesters from the United States, and it was clear to us that more and more grain was liable to be thrown on the market all at one time. That sort of thing never happened, of course, when the old traction engine had to go round to assist in dealing with the harvest. It could move at only a certain pace from one farm to another, and we found that its very mechanical shortcomings helped to keep our flow of supplies of grain running steadily.
I am glad that the noble Earl has come down in favour of the view that it is much better for quantities of this grain, if possible, to be stored on the farms. I agree completely with that view, and, if I may say so, I agree with it not only on the grounds which he has stated but on security grounds as well. We shall have a system of dispersed storage of grain supplies if substantial quantities are kept on farms instead of being concentrated in silos at big ports or places of that sort. From that point of view,
598
therefore, it is far better that considerable quantities of grain should be stored on the farms. I hope the Minister will look into the suggestion—perhaps he will do so before the Bill comes to us—as to whether provision for loans for this purpose cannot be included in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It seems to me equally important, also, as regards the encouragement of grass dryers. I know that I vice the general opinion of your Lordships when I say that we thank the noble Earl very much for the full reply which he has given.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BELL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCFLLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill committed.

OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Allenby be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in place of the Lord Hampton: Read and agreed to.

  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill—namely,

  E. Hardwicke,

  E. Beatty,

  L. Hindlip,

  L. Terrington (Chairman)

  L. Quibell.

  Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
KIRKCALDY GAS ORDER, 1949
  MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM GAS ORDER, 1949
  Special Orders proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application respectively of the Royal Burgh of Kirkcaldy and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Morecambe and Heysham: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTAS) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1949
  Order made by the President of the Board of Trade under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  House adjourned at half past five o'clock.