Sitting of 4 May 1949

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

  DETAINED AIRCRAFT, MILAN
  Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which Consul aircraft G-AIOX of Airspan. Travel Limited has been held by the Italian authorities at Milan since 23rd March.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I understand that the Italian authorities detained the aircraft on the 23rd March because the company failed to obtain the prior permission for the flight that is required, under the Italian regulations, for all commercial non-schedule flights. They were, no doubt, influenced by the fact that this was the second time within a month that the aircraft had been flown to Italy without such permission. His Majesty's Embassy in Rome have been in touch with the Italian authorities but have been informed that the aircraft could not be released for the time being. It appears that it is being held pending an investigation into the documents covering the cargo. There appears to be a conflict of evidence about the cargo manifests and a further report is being asked for.
  Commander Noble: Is it normal to hold the aircraft itself for such a long period, involving a great loss to the company, when there is some question as regards the manifests?
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. If it is alleged that the aircraft owner or the pilot has infringed the regulations of the country, it is normal practice to hold the aircraft until satisfaction has been obtained.
  Major Tufton Beamish: If it turns out that a mistake has been made in this case in which evidence is conflicting, will the Minister look into the possibility of compensation being paid to this airline company?
  Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the terms of paragraph 2 of the preamble and of Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and the Anglo-American policy of encouraging the formation of an Atlantic community of democracies with equal rights, he will propose to the United States Government that the United Kingdom and the United States of America should apply the principles of reciprocity by allowing members of the national legislatures of both countries equal freedom to enter each others territories and to accept invitations from reputable citizens of the country visited to travel, speak, broadcast and write.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend does not consider that any special agreement on these lines is required. It is the right of every Government to decide to whom it should allow entry to its country. This is in no way inconsistent with the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does my hon. Friend's reply mean that His Majesty's Government are content to accept a status of inferiority and inequality for hon. Members of this House as compared with members of the United States Congress?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, certainly not.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As people far more sinister and far less romantic than the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) are able to get into the United States quite easily, does not my hon. Friend think that it is something of an affront to the dignity of this House that a Member of the House should be banned from entering that country?
  Mr. Mayhew: It is a matter for the Government of the United States.
  Mr. Warbey: Will my hon. Friend at least make clear that whatever the legal position may be, it is regarded as an insult to the Mother of Parliaments—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that Members of this House should be debarred from entering the United States, and that it is incompatible with the friendship which exists between our two countries?
  Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have been trying for three and a half years to enter the Soviet Union, and can he ask his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) whether he can persuade the authorities in the Kremlin to allow me to go to that country and thus take advantage of the democratic principles which his hon. Friend apparently supports?
  Mr. Mayhew: That is entirely a matter for the Soviet Government.
  Commander Noble: For the purposes of the record, could we have it quite clear whether the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) said "romantic" or "rheumatic"?
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the terms of Article 7 of the North Atlantic Treaty and of Article 103 of the United Nations Charter, he will give an undertaking that His Majesty's Government, when deciding upon the action necessary under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, will always observe the obligation in Article 53 of the Charter not to take enforcement action against aggression without the authorisation of the Security Council and the obligation in Article 51 of the Charter to exercise the right of self-defence in such a way as not to affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council as the guardian of peace.
  Mr. Mayhew: As a member of the United Nations, His Majesty's Government will naturally observe the obligations of the Charter under Article 51 and under Article 53. I should, however, point out to my hon. Friend that Article 53 of the Charter has no bearing on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 of the Treaty is based on Article 51 of the Charter, and provides for collective self-defence in circumstances where an attack has occurred but where the Security Council has not yet taken
  998
  the measures necessary to maintain peace and security; whereas Article 53 of the Charter relates to enforcement action, a term which means action following a decision of the Security Council authorising it and in this context, taken under regional arrangements or agencies.
  Mr. Zilliacus: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask am I to understand from it that His Majesty's Government will always observe the obligation under Article 51 of the Charter, which declares that measures taken in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence shall not affect in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, and I think that is specifically written into the Atlantic Treaty.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas under Article 51 of the Charter, the decision where action by the Treaty Powers ends and action by the Security Council begins is in the hands of the Security Council itself, under Article 5 of the Treaty, by a subtle change of wording, that decision is left in the hands of the Atlantic Powers, which is an important difference?
  Mr. Mayhew: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is my hon. Friend aware that, by stating that action under Article 51 shall not in any way affect the authority of the Security Council, that action is strictly limited to minor measures, and means that for all practical purposes Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty becomes a dead letter?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir; it means nothing of the kind.
  Major Beamish: Will the Minister ask anyone living in Eastern Europe, Greece or the Arab countries to what extent they look upon the Security Council, gagged as it is by the Russian use of the veto. as the guardian of peace?
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the Minister agree that the Charter of the United Nations provides no remedy whatever against aggression by a major Power, since that major Power has the right of veto?

  GERMANY

    British Visitors
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now made arrangements to enable British citizens to make visits to Western Germany.
    Mr. Mayhew: Arrangements agreed between the three Western Occupying Powers already exist for persons having business or compassionate grounds to visit Germany. The extension of these arrangements to cover certain other categories of visitors is under consideration and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Turton: Can the Under-Secretary say what he means by "shortly"? Will it be before the holiday season is over or not?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir; it will.

    Berlin (Situation)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken to secure the release of the British officer and other ranks apprehended by Soviet military authorities in the British sector of Berlin on 22nd April, 1949.
    Mr. Mayhew: These men were released on 30th April, following our representations to the Soviet Chief of Staff.
    Mr. Blackburn: While in no way imitating the example of the Opposition in asking for action without specifying what kind of action ought to be taken, may I ask my hon. Friend whether there have not been far too many incidents of this character, whether he has taken that into account, and whether some form of retaliation may be considered?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not asked for any specific action in that Question, and I will not comment on this incident further until we have received the report which we are expecting from our authorities.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the conversations recently held with the representatives of the Soviet Union with relation to the Soviet blockade of Berlin; and what result has been achieved.
    Mr. Mayhew: Exploratory conversations have taken place between Dr. Jessup, United States Ambassador at large, and M. Malik, the Soviet representative on the Security Council, regarding the possibility of lifting the blockade. M. Malik has indicated that the Soviet Government are prepared to agree to the simultaneous lifting of restrictions on communications, transportation and trade between Berlin and the Western Zones of Germany and between the Western and Eastern Zones of Germany, followed by a Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. If it is confirmed that this represents in practice the position of the Soviet Government, the way should be clear for a raising of the blockade, followed by a Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.
    Mr. Blackburn: In view of the undesirability of purely bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, may we be assured that His Majesty's Government have been consulted in every stage and brought into co-operation at every stage of these negotiations?
    Mr. Mayhew: There is no question of bilateral consultations. We have been fully informed at all stages, and all four representatives are meeting today.

  "BRITISH ALLY," MOSCOW (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost in 1948 of printing and publishing "British Ally," the British Government's publication in Moscow; what is the average number of copies distributed of each issue; and if he has considered the desirability of ceasing further publication.
  Mr. Mayhew: The cost in 1948 was approximately £88,500 and the receipts from sales £108,139. The average number of copies distributed weekly is 50,000. This is the maximum circulation permitted by the Soviet Government. It is not proposed to cease publication.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no change in the policy of "British Ally," in giving a faithful reflection of the views expressed in this country about affairs in Russia and elsewhere?
  Mr. Mayhew: We shall always try to that, and we do not contemplate any change of policy.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Does the Minister contemplate any change in the title?

  CHINA (BRITISH POLICY)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government will consider itself bound by the declaration of policy made in Moscow in 1945 regarding the future of China in view of the changed international situation and the signing of the Atlantic Pact aimed at preventing further Communist expansion in Europe.
  Mr. Mayhew: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement on this subject which will be made during the course of the Debate tomorrow.

  ADEN (LANGUAGE TEACHING)
  Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the teaching of a common language, either Arabic or English, in Government-aided schools in Aden, to promote a greater understanding among the different races.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): No, Sir.

  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' SALARIES)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government Teachers Union of Mauritius has been consulted on the application of the revised scale of salaries recommended by the Commission of Inquiry.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. Consultations between the Government and the Government Teachers' and Aided School Teachers' Unions have been in progress since 31st March.
  Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the large meeting which was held in April protesting against the inadequacy of the scales and the fact that they were imposed on the teachers without any con-
  1002
  sultation, and does he think that this encourage the growth of trade unionism in the Colonies?
  Mr. Rees-Williams:As I have said, consultations are now proceeding with the unions.

  HONG KONG

    Radio Station
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken, or are proposed to be taken, and what money has been spent, or is proposed to be spent, in connection with developing the Hong Kong Radio Station in order to extend its range, particularly throughout China.
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to strengthen the radio station at Hong Kong.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The broadcasting coverage of the Far East, including China, is the function of the B.B.C's. station in Singapore, not of Radio Hong Kong. The possibility is being examined of an increase in power for Hong Kong's medium frequency broadcasting service; I am not able to give an estimate of the cost which may be involved.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Malayan station is going to take a long time to complete and will certainly not be effective in reaching North China, and possibly not Central China, and that, therefore, the Hong Kong station in present circumstances should be given priority?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: No. I do not accept some of the allegations of the hon. Gentleman. I am informed that the Singapore station will be very effective.
    Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his statement that the B.B.C. has the responsibility for Singapore is utter nonsense, and contains just about as much sense as if he said that the responsibility for Canadian broadcasting was that of the B.B.C. in this country? Cannot something be done to increase the power of the station at Hong Kong?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: We are doing that.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware of the importance of developing the station at Hong Kong?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am well aware of that and we fully realise the importance of increasing the power of the Hong Kong station.

    Air Bases
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the increasing gravity of the situation in China, he is taking steps to ensure that early improvement is made to the airfields and seaplane bases in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. Contracts are already being let for the repair of the runways at Kai Tak, and work will start this month. I am not aware of any inadequacy in the existing alighting facilities for flying boats and seaplanes.
    Mr. Fletcher: Should not the Minister be aware of the very great difficulty which exists with regard to the landing, and particularly the taking off, of flying boats with the accommodation at present available, which is well known to everybody who has been there?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that Kai Tak is quite an unsuitable aerodrome at which to land aircraft at all, and further, that I asked three years ago that arrangements should be made for building a new airport in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another matter.

  KENYA

    National Registration (Fingerprints)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that British settlers in Kenya Colony are being compelled, when the National Registration Bill comes into force on 16th May, to submit to the taking of full fingerprints of both hands for identification purposes; and if he will take steps to see that this practice shall not be put into operation.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Bill was passed by the Legislative Council in 1947 after full public discussion. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the measure
    1004
    commands wide support locally, and he sees no reason to intervene.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why British subjects should be subjected to such degradation?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is not degradation at all. The Committee, representing all races, recommended this in 1946.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the very great resentment against this infringement of civil liberties which is felt by the European population, and will he look into the matter again and do something about it?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: No. The European population were represented on the Committee in 1946 which made this recommendation.

    Crown Lands (Resettlement)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies where, in Kenya, the 384,000 acres of Crown Lands offered for alienation are situated; and whether he has approved the alienation in view of the urgent need for the resettlement of considerable numbers of the native African population.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend would, I feel sure, approve the arrangements proposed by the Kenya Government to bring into more effective use this land which is in North Laikipia within the settled area and can only be economically used for large scale ranching.
    Colonel Dower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this land has been chosen for climatic conditions, that settlers are waiting to go there to increase the food production, and will he do everything he can to facilitate its transfer as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Baldwin: Before any more land is handed over for native cultivation, will the hon. Gentleman take care that supervision is retained in order to see that the natives do not erode the land as they are doing in their own settlements at the present time?

    Labour Efficiency Survey
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what steps will be taken in East Africa to

    1005
    secure further improvement in facilities for primary and technical education, in the light of the Report of the Kenya and African Labour Efficiency Survey;
    (2) whether he has considered the references in the Kenya and African Labour Efficiency Survey concerning grave discontent among African workers as a result of continued colour discrimination, grievances concerning alienation of land and lack of opportunities for advancement; and what steps it is proposed to take in these matters in the light of this survey.
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is proposed on the recommendations of the recent Survey of Labour Efficiency in Kenya that a more extended inquiry into the economic and social life of the African should be undertaken; what steps are being taken to provide a larger number of maternity and child welfare clinics in view of the conclusion that many Africans are suffering from malignant malnutrition developed in infancy; and whether the Kenya-Uganda railway administration is setting up an African Housing Advisory Committee as recommended in the Survey.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Report is at present under consideration by the East African High Commission and the East African Governments, and my right hon. Friend is awaiting their observations on its recommendations. With regard to the first part of the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), a more extended survey is not at present contemplated.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the emphasis which has been placed on race discrimination, is the Minister aware that a large proportion of these charges of race discrimination arise from misapprehension on the part of the African community; that a large number of them are matters which could be avoided or properly discussed with the African community, and that some could be avoided by proper legislation? That being so, will he consider—arising from this Report—the advisability of setting up a joint Anglo-African Commission to inquire into the possibility of removing or modifying this race discrimination?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. I will put the suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    Newspaper (Ban)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Governor of Kenya has banned the importation of the "Labour Monthly" newspaper; why this step was taken; and if he will take steps to rescind this order.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. The importation of this newspaper was banned as a result of recent articles in it glorifying Communism, revolution and mutiny. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to intervene in the matter.
    Mr. Piratin: Is not the Minister aware that this paper, which has now been published for some 27 years, is in the Library of this House and is accessible to every intelligent Member who desires to read it? If that is the case, why should it not be equally accessible at least to white citizens in Kenya?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have not heard of any demand by white citizens in Kenya for this paper, and the Government do not think that it is a good thing to put before any of the people in that country.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a good thing if the Governor prohibited other subversive papers in Kenya for stirring up strife amongst a primitive and ignorant people?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware, as he should be, that this is one of the finest and best journals, that it is a highly valuable educational organ particularly in doing away with racial discrimination and racial superiority and, above all others, should be circulated in those areas? Will the Minister see that it is circulated?
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this paper has not been guilty of publishing the Communist manifesto to celebrate its centenary?
    Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Governor concerned is the same one who recently said that he hoped soon to retire from work and take up farming?

  WEST INDIES

    Grenada (Nutmeg Production)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the resolution sent him from a large meeting of the peasantry in Queen's Park Pavilion, St. George's, Grenada, expressing dissatisfaction with the Grenada Co-operative Nutmeg Association and requesting that the Association be made a voluntary organisation, leaving producers free; and what action he has taken, or proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has not received the resolution which, it is understood, was not addressed to him but to the unofficial members of the Grenada Legislative Council.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that I have sent the hon. Gentleman the resolution and that the people of Grenada see the folly of State control, when will light dawn on the British Government?
    Mr. Rees-Wlliams: The people of Grenada see nothing of the kind; the people of the Colonies are in full accord with our policy, but, in any case, a Bill to amend the ordinance referred to will shortly be put before the Legislative Council.

    Jamaica (Newsprint Allocation)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding permission granted to the Jamaican "Gleaner" newspaper to increase its advertising content up to 60 per cent. of the total newsprint used; and why the Jamaican "Daily Express" has been cut in its newsprint allocation to eight pages of tabloid size whilst the "Gleaner" is permitted 14 pages standard size.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Jamaica "Gleaner" newspaper has agreed to restrict its advertising space to an average of 60 per cent. as against a previous 70 per cent. of the newsprint used. In consequence the Government of Jamaica decided to withdraw a newsprint control Order of 1948 formally restricting advertising content. As regards the second
    1008
    part of the Question, my information is that the Jamaica "Daily Express" still publishes a 12-page issue.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say why there should be this disparity between the newsprint allowed to one newspaper, which is of standard size, and the newsprint allowed to the other newspaper, which is of tabloid size; and will he also say what justification there is for allowing Jamaican newspapers to use as much as 60 per cent. of their newsprint for advertisements when nothing like that percentage is allowed here.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As I have said, the former Order was withdrawn, and the Government are now operating on an agreement between themselves and the newspapers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the conditions in this country are not in all respects similar to those in Jamaica.
    Mr. Gammans: But why the disparity between the two newspapers?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The disparity, as I have said, is not really a matter under the control of the Government; it is a matter controlled by the trade.

  MALAYA

    Death Sentence
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the appeal by Mr. Ganapathy against sentence of death in Malaya has been heard; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: On 1st March last this man, when challenged near Rawang in Selangor by a party of special constables, showed fight and grabbed a revolver which he had in his belt. After a short struggle he was overpowered, and the revolver was found to be loaded with six rounds of ammunition. Mr. Ganapathy was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of arms and ammunition under the Emergency Regulations. Both assessors (one European and one Indian) found him guilty without retiring. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. The Ruler in Council has declined to exercise the prerogative of mercy in his favour, and he was executed this morning.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that the announcement he has just made will be met with widespread disapproval in the Labour movement in this country as Mr. Ganapathy was a leading trade unionist in Malaya; and, further, is the Minister equally aware that this penalty of death for the carrying of arms in Malaya is something which does not conform with what he has often declared is the Western way of life, and will he therefore remember what he previously said in this particular matter?

    Official Appointments
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many local men in Malaya have been given senior official appointments since the end of the war; and to what extent have the recommendations of the Trusted Report been implemented.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The figures are not readily available, and I will write to my hon. Friend when they have been obtained from Malaya. As regards the second part of the Question, most of the principal recommendations in the Trusted Report have been implemented with retrospective effect.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there is a general feeling in the Federation that the Government are putting obstacles in the way of the implementation of this Report, and will he do what he can to remove this feeling?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I can hardly think that what my hon. Friend says can be entirely correct because most of the recommendations have already been implemented. There are a few which have not, and we are awaiting a report on those.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the probable reason why the figures are not available is because no local men have been appointed to the senior appointments?

    Federal Citizenship
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the conditions laid down for members of all races resident in Malaya to become Malayan nationals.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the Pan-Indian Federation are calling upon the Indian Government to protect their nationals until the Malayan Federation comes to a decision with reference to the nationality of the Pan-Indian Federation?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Malayan cititzenship is not a nationality, and I was not aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Following is the answer:
    Malayan citizenship is not a nationality, and does not affect or impair the status of British or other nationals who become Federal citizens. Citizenship may be acquired either automatically or on application. The following persons are automatically Federal citizens:

    (a) Any subject of the Ruler of a Malay State.

    (b) Any British subject born in either of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca, who is permanently resident (that is say, has completed a continuous period of 15 years' residence) anywhere in the territories comprised in the Federation.

    (c) Any British subject born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation whose father, either

    (i) was himself born in any of these territories or;

    (ii) has resided therein for a continuous period of not less than 15 years;

    (d) Any person born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation, who habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.

    (e) Any other person born in any of these territories at any time, both of whose parents were born in any of the territories and have been resident in them for a continuous period of not less than 15 years; and

    (f) Any person whose father is, at the date of that person's birth, a Federal citizen.

    The provisions regarding the acquisition of citizenship by application are as follow:
    The High Commissioner may grant a certificate conferring the status of a Federal citizen on any person who applies and satisfies the High Commissioner—

    (a) that either—

    (i) he was born in any of the territories comprised in the Federation and has been

    1011
    resident in any one or more of the territories for not less than 8 out of the 12 years preceeding his application; or

    (ii) he has been resident in any one or more of those territories for not less than 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding his application.

    (b) The applicant must satisfy the High Commissioner that he is of good character, possesses an adequate knowledge of the Malay or English language, has made a declaration of permanent settlement in the prescribed form, and if his application is approved, that he is willing to take the citizenship oath. An applicant for citizenship must be of the age of 18 or over.

    In the case of any person over the age of 45, who has been resident in any of the territories comprised in the territory of the Federation for 20 years, and who applies for citizenship within two years from the appointed day, the language qualifications will be waived.

  NIGERIA

    Trading Surpluses
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of the accumulated profits transferred to the Nigerian Marketing Board for groundnuts, benniseed, palm oil and palm kernels, relating to the period between the end of hostilities and 1st February, 1947.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The West African Produce Control Board did not sell at a profit during this period. The question of transferring accumulated profits does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that last week the Parliamentary Secretary disclosed the fact that very considerable profits were made during this period by the Ministry of Food on this produce, and will he take up the matter with the Ministry of Food to see that the Nigerian producers get their fair share of profits?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension on this point, and had he read last week's Debate, as I suggested, he would be clear about it. He does not appreciate the difference between trading surpluses of the Board and the resultant profits of the Ministry of Food after the produce has come into their hands.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that during the Debate on 24th February, he
    1012
    carefully avoided any reference to profits made during the period in question, and will he now give an explanation?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is quite clear from the Debate recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT why there were no trading surpluses up to 1st February, 1947, and why there have been surpluses since that date. There was then a change of policy.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a fact that the farmer in Nigeria receives for his groundnuts only about half of what the Minister of Food proposes to pay the Overseas Food Corporation in East Africa?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question.

    Export Controls
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the removal of controls imposed on the commercial export of goods from Nigeria.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Export is freely permitted, except where the produce is internationally allocated or marketed centrally through a statutory organisation. Exports to the sterling area are under open general licence, but specific licensing remains necessary for exports elsewhere to ensure compliance with exchange control regulations.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that within a week after I asked this Question at the end of March, the Nigerian Government made a change of policy which they announced to Nigeria, and will he now make a statement on that change of policy which he has not yet disclosed and of which he has not shown he is aware?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Development Corporation (Report)
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the first report of the Colonial Development Corporation; and when he proposes to publish it.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Corporation's report is expected shortly by my right hon. Friend. It will then be laid before the House.

    Retired Civil Servants (Pensions)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further attention has been given to the need of increasing pension rates for retired colonial civil servants and their dependants in view of the hardship now being experienced by many of them.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Colonial Governments were invited to revise their pension increase schemes to conform to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, of this country, and most of them have done so. No further general increase is at present proposed.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still great hardship? Cannot some action be taken by which all the various Colonial Governments are brought into line to meet what is admittedly a very grave hardship?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Most of them have, and we are constantly making suggestions to those who have not come into line to do so.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the Under-Secretary say what percentage increase has been allowed?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Not without notice.

  WEST AFRICAN COCOA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to increase the staff and facilities of the West African Cocoa Research Institute, as recommended by the expert commission four months ago.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Their requirements have been formulated by the managing committee of the Institute, and urgent action to meet them is being taken here and in the Gold Coast.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the Under-Secretary say when that action is likely to be implemented, as there is a certain urgency about it?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: In the case of technicians, quite a number have gone out or are being engaged locally. In the case of buildings, of course, it will take a considerable time to get them erected.

  UGANDA (DISTURBANCES)
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make concerning recent disturbances in Uganda; and what steps are being taken.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the riots in Uganda and the steps being taken to deal with the situation there.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Disturbances broke out in Kampala on 25th April with attacks on Buganda Government chiefs and workers. Prompt action was taken by the police and military and the situation is now quiet. Five rioters were shot dead, three while attacking the police, one in self-defence by an African, and one in circumstances now being investigated. The Governor has appointed a Commissioner to inquire into and report upon the original causes and development of the disturbances, and the measures taken by the Government to deal with them.
  Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister give any indication of the number of organisations and the proportion of the African community which they represent who were involved in initiating these disturbances?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have some information, but I would rather not make any statement on that sort of issue while this Commission is pending.
  Mr. Sorensen: Pending the report of the Commission, could not the Under-Secretary at least indicate what were the circumstances which gave rise to this very grave occurrence? Surely, there must be some kind of information on that point.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I would rather not make any statement until the matter has been investigated.
  Mr. Scollan: Is not the primary cause of these disturbances the fact that these people have been treated as aliens in their own native land?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: That is certainly not the cause of the disturbances.
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to Mr. Semakula Mulumba, the London representative of the Bataka people in Uganda, who protested to him against the use of British troops against African demonstrators; and whether he will make a statement on the situation in Kampala, Uganda.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: For reasons which he made clear in reply to a Question on 3rd November last, my right hon. Friend is not disposed to accept seriously Mr. Mulumba's views on affairs in Uganda. No reply has been sent to his communications about the recent disturbances which are now the subject of a Commission of Inquiry. I have already given an account of the situation in Uganda in reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen).
  Mr. Piratin: As the hon. Gentleman has not given an answer to the earlier Question, will he now take the opportunity of explaining what exactly happened, at least in the light of the report that he has received from the Governor without necessarily waiting for the Commission's findings?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have said what happened. I said that an inquiry was being made into the causes and also into whether the right action was taken by the Government.
  Mr. Stanley: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Governor of Uganda had previously taken any action with regard to "Labour Monthly"?
  Mr. Piratin: Are we to understand from the Under-Secretary's reply that he has no definite information until the Commission reports? Are we, therefore, to infer that the Governor is not prepared to make a statement because, perhaps, the Governor himself was involved in certain matters of which he is ashamed?
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Speaker: It is clearly out of Order to make inferences of that kind and
  1016
  accuse the Governor of being implemented. The hon. Gentleman is very wrong.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Eden: Mr. Speaker, the officer referred to is His Majesty's representative in the Colony concerned. If the remark is out of Order, should not the hon. Member be asked to withdraw it?
  Mr. Speaker: I thought I gave the hon. Member a strong enough reproof. I could not have made it much stronger without asking the hon. Member himself to withdraw.
  Mr. Piratin: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As you have not ordered me to withdraw, I have no intention of withdrawing, for this reason—
  Mr. Speaker: That makes it worse. I did not order the hon. Member to withdraw, but when the hon. Member says "I have no intention of withdrawing" that makes it much worse. I am afraid that now I must order the hon. Member to withdraw.
  Mr. Piratin: I do not wish in any way to dispute with, or to reflect upon, the Chair. I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say this: If the last statement which I made reflects on the Chair, then I withdraw it. With regard to the earlier statement, may I take this opportunity of explaining that I am reluctant to make statements of that kind in this House, and I have not made many, but it was the Under-Secretary's earlier reply that five people had been killed in this particular occurrence that caused me to make that statement. I am sorry to have offended the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member has said was a reflection. He said that the Governor had been implicated in riots and disturbances, and that was wholly improper. I thought I was being very moderate in not calling upon the hon. Member to withdraw. As he did not respond of his own accord, I now feel obliged to tell him that he must withdraw. I really must insist upon that.
  Mr. Piratin: In deference to yourself and to the honour of the Chair in this House, I withdraw.

  BRITISH GUIANA (AMERINDIANS)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the scheme prepared by the Commissioner of the Interior of British Guiana for improving the conditions of the Amerindians and the Report by the Amerindian Welfare Officer will be published.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Both reports were laid before the Legislative Council on 2nd February.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (EX-SERVICE MEN'S CAMP)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by the Government of British Honduras to remedy the conditions at the ex-Service men's camp at Baking Pot on which a report was made to the Government by Mr. E. A. Grant.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor for a report on this matter and will write to my hon. Friend when it has been received.

  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M. Ships, Pacific
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of His Majesty's ships by classes present and available in the Pacific on 20th April, 1949, with comparable figures for 1st January, 1947.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): No, Sir. To give the disposition of the Fleet would not be in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government on the disclosure of defence information. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the Debate on the Defence White Paper on 3rd March last and by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord during the Debate on the Navy Estimates on 8th March.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how the public in-
    1018
    terest can be adversely affected by disclosing the disposition of the Fleet two-and-a-half years ago, and can he also say how this House can discharge its responsibility in this matter if the relevant facts are deliberately withheld?
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member asked not only for the strength two years ago but for the strength now, and that is quite a different matter. It is a matter of general policy upon which statements have been made on a number of occasions, as I have said, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.
    Commander Noble: As it is quite obvious to the House that there is no aircraft carrier on that station, can the Minister say when there was last an aircraft carrier on that station?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question. There was in October, 1947.
    Commander Noble: Why was it withdrawn?
    Mr. Dugdale: It was withdrawn because it was considered, and His Majesty's Government were satisfied, that the allocation of ships to the Far East station at that time was in proper proportion to the total available for service abroad and adequate for the duties of the Royal Navy in Chinese waters.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Are not aircraft carriers an absolute necessity if a Fleet is to be in proper proportion when there are a large number of ships on any station?
    Mr. Blackburn: In view of the fact that we had only 23 tanks in France and Belgium in May, 1940, are not these questions rather fantastic effrontery?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that, in reply to a supplementary question, the Parliamentary Secretary disclosed part of the information which he refused to give in answer to the original Question, can he say how he can now defend his refusal to give the full facts?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, I did not. In fact, I disclosed a piece of information, whereas I was asked for the full disposition of the Fleet, which is quite another matter. I have nothing to add.

    R.N.R. (Merchant Navy Officers)
    Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Merchant Navy officers who contribute to the Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund are not credited for the periods they spend attending the Royal Naval Reserve, unless they are in receipt of pay from the ship owner for that period; and whether the Admiralty, as the employing authority for the time that these officers are with the Naval Reserve, will agree to contribute the employers' share of contribution.
    Mr. Dugdale: The position of these officers in this respect has been carefully considered by the Admiralty on a number of occasions. It is established policy that the State should not accept liability for the financial commitments incurred in civil life by members of the Forces and, while I wholeheartedly appreciate the value of the services rendered by Royal Naval Reserve officers, it would not be possible to treat them differently from other Reservists by giving them what would be, in effect, an increase in emoluments.
    Commander Maitland: Is not this an example of the Admiralty revealing itself in the role of an exceedingly bad employer?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir.

  TELEVISION

    Lancashire
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Postmaster-General if he now has a further statement to make regarding the date on which the television service will be provided in Lancashire.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: When my right hon. Friend's Department decided to extend the television service surely, apart from the question of equipment and cost, they must have taken account of the time factor. Is not my right hon. Friend in a position to give any indication to this House and to the people of Lancashire when they may expect to have the benefits of the television service?
    Mr. Paling: No, Sir.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister see, when the time comes, and in view of the very staggering, vacillating figures which sometimes appear, that a very steady appearance is given to people, including hon. Members from Lancashire, who may appear on the screen?
    Sir R. Ross: In considering this question would the Postmaster-General see whether he can give a television service which can be extended to Northern Ireland, whether from Lancashire or somewhere else?
    Mr. Paling: We regularly consider a television service to all places.

    Licences
    Mr. J. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Publicity Office of his Department have stated that the number of television licences current at the end of February, 1949, was only 111,850, whereas he himself, in a recent statement, said that the figure was 120,100; and if he will explain the discrepancy.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The Press notices issued by my Department contained no discrepancy. They gave 111,850 as the number of television licences in force at the end of January and 120,100 as the number in force at the end of February. I referred to the latter total when replying to my hon. Friend on 30th March.

  ARMED FORCES

    Release Benefits
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that National Service men are now serving for approximately the same length of time as did men of age and service groups 70 to 78, but do not get the same release benefits; and whether he will review the release benefits of National Service men. with a view to removing the disparity.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The point to which the hon. Member refers received careful attention during the recent review of the scale of release benefits for National Service men and no undertaking can be given to reconsider the question.
    Mr. Renton: Can the Minister give no logical explanation of the distinction, or are the men concerned to assume that whereas the earlier scheme was introduced by a Coalition Government and is more favourable, the latter scheme was introduced by a Socialist Government and is less favourable?
    Mr. Alexander: The inference is quite unwarranted. The whole of the earlier scheme was related to war service and was worked out on that basis. We came to a decision, which was announced as far back as January, 1947, and it is only in the recent months that any question has been raised about the differentiation between the position of these men and those who had war service and were being released under the age and service group scheme of demobilisation.
    Mr. Paget: In January, 1947, a shorter period of service was contemplated.
    Mr. Alexander: The National Service Act had not been introduced.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Is the Minister trying to tell the House that groups 70 to 78 had war service? Is that correct?
    Mr. Alexander: I was saying nothing of the kind, but I am quite sure that hon. Members with long experience of the House know that when a change of policy takes place, from wartime, there must be a dividing line somewhere, and the date was fixed.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the adverse vote at the Co-operative Party conference, will not the Minister withdraw National Service altogether?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

    Educational Facilities
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Defence what facilities are available to young men serving their time in the Services under National Service regulations for pursuing studies in preparation for professional and other examinations.
    Mr. Alexander: The Services are anxious to help National Service men who wish to prepare for professional and other examinations in their spare time and various facilities are provided for them. These include libraries, quiet
    1022
    rooms for study, personal advice, and assistance by the Forces Educational Services, correspondence courses, and instruction at units and education centres or in institutions run by local authorities.

    Hong Kong (Defence)
    Mr. Donnerasked the Minister of Defence whether the Committee of Commanders-in-Chief of the three Services in the Far East have completed their recommendations in regard to the measures required to maintain the security of Hong Kong and the new Territories in view of the deteriorating military situation in Southern China; and if he will give an assurance that action has been taken accordingly.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Defence if he is satisfied that the air defences of Hong Kong are adequate.
    Mr. Alexander: I would invite the hon. Members to await the Debate to take place tomorrow during which a statement will be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government with a reference to the defence of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Donner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the precautionary measures taken to safeguard the mainland frontiers of Hong Kong are now sufficient to protect the Colony when the Communist armies reach there?
    Mr. Alexander: I think we had better wait for the Debate tomorrow and the statement which will then be made.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate that the Minister wants to make a statement tomorrow, will he make specific reference in tomorrow's Debate to the air defence of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Alexander: Let us await the statement.

    British Mission, Burma
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence how many officers and other ranks of His Majesty's Forces are serving with the Government of Burma.
    Mr. Alexander: According to the latest information available the strength of the British Services Mission in Burma is 85 officers and 87 other ranks.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Farm Workers' Rations
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he will consult with the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers in order to arrange a more satisfactory method of issuing the seasonal rations to farm workers this Summer.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): My Department has been continuously in touch with both these organisations. The arrangements for seasonal rations were revised last Summer and I think they should work satisfactorily this year.
    Mr. Hurd: Has the Minister now agreed that these rations can be drawn directly by the farm worker, as the miner draws his extra rations?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. In an answer which I shall give to another Question this afternoon the House will see the exact arrangements which have now been come to, but they do not amount to direct differential rationing, which we are advised against.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say who it is, or what organisation it is, that is objecting to the workers drawing their own rations, or is it he and his Department; and if so why?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly my Department objects to extending differential rationing, I think for good reasons, and so does the Trade Union Congress Advisory Committee.
    Captain Crookshank: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is not only a question of a differential ration, but that it is a question of how the ration is drawn?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should know that that is precisely the question at issue. The way it is drawn at present does not amount to a differential ration, but the proposed way would amount to such.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why?

    Cheese
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he will state the quantity and
    1024
    value of the Danish blue, Rocquefort and Gorgonzola cheese to be imported this year; and the quantity and value of the Stilton cheese which he will permit to be made here this year.
    Mr. Strachey: The total quantity of Danish blue, Rocquefort and Gorgonzola cheese to be imported this year is estimated at 8,500 tons, and the total cost at about £2,400,000 f.o.b. Home production of Stilton cheese is estimated at about 400 tons over the year, and the value, based on the manufacturers' selling prices, at about £200,000.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentle-give us an assurance that he will allow home producers of this specialist cheese a fair crack of the whip as compared with the Frenchmen making Rocquefort and other cheeses?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. At the moment we are allowing the manufacturers of Stilton cheese all the milk they can take, but that is, of course, while milk is plentiful. We could not allow them unlimited supplies during the scarce season during the winter.
    Major Beamish: Is not this great and welcome variety of cheese which is now allowed a most disgraceful pandering to individual tastes?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it is a most sensible and reasonable provision.

    Polish Farina
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Food what is the reason for the surcharge of £11 5s. per ton levied on the 15,000 tons of Polish farina being imported to this country at a cost of £30 per ton.
    Mr. Strachey: The price charged by the Ministry of Food for starch is based upon the weighted average cost of starch to the Ministry. The Polish farina to which the hon. Member refers is only a small part of the total supply.
    Mr. Erroll: What is the point of taxing this essential raw material for the textile export industry? The surcharge is nothing less than a tax.
    Mr. Strachey: I hope my reply made it clear that there was no tax. We pass on the supply at the cost to ourselves on the average.

    Eggs
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Food the average number of shell eggs now available weekly to each person; and if he is satisfied that all parts of the country are getting a fair allocation.
    Mr. Strachey: Shell egg allocations in April averaged 2.8 a week. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir, as far as is practicable in the distribution of this food."
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that a statement by his Parliamentary Secretary led people to believe that more eggs would be available to make up for the cut in the meat ration, but that there are complaints from many parts of the country that people are not even getting their ordinary ration of eggs? Is he aware that there are complaints from every part of the country regarding the unequal distribution of surplus eggs? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Very appreciably more eggs have been available this year than last, and in some parts of the country there have been surplus eggs above the allocation.
    Mr. Eden: People throw them at Communists.
    Captain John Crowder: What is happening to all these surplus eggs? Is there some priority given to the shops, or is priority given to restaurants and cafés, because my constituents have been writing to me to say they can always get eggs in restaurants and cafés but cannot get any surplus eggs in the shops? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a fairer distribution to the housewives?
    Mr. Strachey: There is an allocation of surplus eggs to catering establishments because they are not receiving dried egg at the moment. That is all.
    Mr. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again? Will he look at the Press to see how these complaints are circulating daily, and will he take some action?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food why, by Statutory Instrument, No. 612, 1949, he has provided that the registration number of the purchaser of eggs for hatching
    1026
    purposes shall be stated on the declaration required to be made by him.
    Mr. Strachey: This requirement, which has been in force since 1944, is a check on the identity of persons buying eggs for hatching.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to one case in which the registration number has actually operated to identify a single purchaser?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that it would materially have helped to identify him.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In which case? This is purely theoretical.

    Bananas, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that many children in Newport have been unable to obtain any allowance of bananas this year, in spite of the fact that there are deliveries about once a fortnight and that other people are frequently able to obtain them; and if he will take further steps to sec that his regulations are enforced in this respect.
    Mr. Strachey: My enforcement inspectors are instructed to do all in their power to see that the provisions of the Bananas Order are being observed. I shall be glad to investigate any case of an alleged offence against the order if particulars are sent to me.
    Mr. Freeman: What action is taken against a retailer who does not give priority to children?
    Mr. Strachey: If a case can be investigated and proved a prosecution can follow.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are these "other people" who are so frequently able to obtain bananas?
    Mr. Strachey: The persons referred to in my hon. Friend's Question are, presumably, adults.

    Australian Meat Agreement
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Food whether he will give the details of the agreement reached between him and the Australian Government for supplies of meat to this country on a long-term basis.
    Mr. Strachey: As already announced, the details of this agreement are now being worked out, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the joint Statement issued by Mr. Chifley and myself on 27th April, and will place a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is it not a fact that if we had had this or a similar agreement in the past, and a proper Empire food policy, our housewives would not today be in their present position? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that he will by bulk purchase and similar agreements, buy as much meat and other food from the British Commonwealth and Empire, both in the short-term and long-term, as he possibly can?
    Mr. Strachey: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, if this arrangement or a similar one had been entered into 15 years ago it would now be bearing fruit. I wish it had. The reply to the second part of the question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Eden: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have found a simple way out by buying feedingstuffs last year?
    Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman knows, because I have already given him the figures, that we did buy five times the amount of feedingstuffs last year that we did in 1945.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the documents in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that we may have them permanently recorded, instead of merely putting them in the Library?
    Mr. Strachey: The Report of the joint Statement between myself and the Prime Minister of Australia?
    Captain Crookshank: Yes.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Does this 15 years' agreement that the Minister contemplates, mean, that meat rationing is to continue for 15 years in this country?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The purpose of these agreements is to increase the supply of meat by giving Commonwealth producers an assurance of a market in this country that they have never had before.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: With whom was the right hon. Gentleman associated 15 years ago?
    Mr. Strachey: I think the best thing I can say to that is, that I am very glad that I was not associated with the persons responsible for His Majesty's Government at that time.
    Following is the Statement:

    1. During the course of his present visit to London, Mr. Chifley has been able to discuss with Mr. Strachey plans for the increase of meat supplies to the United Kingdom from Australia.

    2. Extensive preparatory work has been done in Australia. Plans have been worked out and the necessary capital expenditure approved by the Commonwealth Government for increased cattle production in the Wyndham area of the State of Western Australia. Projects for the expansion of production in big areas in Northern Australia—involving road making, stock route improvement, schemes for water conservation and the like—are also being investigated. Schemes for development in other parts of Australia are to be considered. It is recognised that these developments will require substantial supplies of materials, particularly steel products, and road making equipment beyond those available in Australia itself.

    3. In view of the importance to the United Kingdom of increased meat supplies from Australia the Government of the United Kingdom has urged the Commonwealth Government to promote development schemes designed substantially to raise exports to the United Kingdom to an agreed level within an agreed period.

    4. The Government of the United Kingdom has declared its willingness, in return for an undertaking on the part of the Australian Government to promote development schemes which offer a good prospect of increased supplies of the agreed magnitude, to enter into arrangements that will guarantee a market at reasonable prices in the United Kingdom for the whole of the exportable surplus of meat from Australia up to a specified ceiling period of 15 years. The Government of the United Kingdom is also prepared to set limits upon the fluctuation of prices during a period of seven years, as in the case of the contracts for butter and cheese with Australia.

    1029

    5. Negotiations for a formal agreement in pursuance of the foregoing will be undertaken as soon as possible.

    E.V.W. Camps (Meat Ration)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food why anyone living in a camp for European voluntary workers automatically receives a meat ration worth 2s. 9d. a week.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The allowances of meat for European Volunteer Workers, and for British workers, who live in camps or hostels are exactly the same. There is no differentiation whatever in favour of the foreign worker. The allowances to both depend on the type of work which they do and the number of meals they take there. For instance, those who have canteens at their work get only the equivalent of the domestic ration.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise—while I agree that the figure may be 2s. 6d. rather than 2s. 9d.—that many of these foreign workers, who in fact go sick a great deal more frequently than British workers, are entitled to the full meat ration; and does not he regard that as grossly unfair to the agricultural worker living at home?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree to differentiation between the categories of workers whether they are European or British. Whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the meat ration for all workers, whether British or foreign—and they are about half and half—in these camps should be cut down is another matter.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many of the E.V.W. who are in fact "scrim-shanking" and yet getting the full meat ration?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; I think that a most unworthy suggestion.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint is not of differentiation between European and British workers, but the difference between the ration given to people living in hostels and that given to British workers who live at home on half that ration?
    Mr. Strachey: That is an entirely different question. I should be very reluctant to cut down the rations for heavy workers, which is what is really involved, whether they live in camps or not. That question can be examined so long as it is free from the suggestion of differentiation in favour of foreign workers.

  SOAP RATION

    Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that many housewives in Newport are unable to obtain the regular monthly ration of soap, and some have only had one monthly supply this year; and what steps are being taken to ensure its regular availability.
    Mr. Strachey: The supplies of soap available to retailers in Newport were increased in January and again in March in order to enable them to carry larger stocks, and because of the increase in population. I have had no complaint of any present shortage, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of any case of failure to obtain the ration I will gladly look into it.

    St. Neots
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of soap powders and soap flakes at St. Neots, Huntingdonshire; and what steps he is taking to secure a more even distribution of these rationed commodities.
    Mr. Strachey: The distribution of particular types of soap is a matter for the trade, in the light of their knowledge of local demand, but if the hon. Member will let me have details of any complaint I will willingly look into it.
    Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question refers to soap which is on the ration? How can he expect the people of St. Neots to keep as clean as they wish, if his rationing system does not work efficiently? Will he look into this matter further?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir; but will the hon. Gentleman give me particulars of a case in which the ration has not been honoured?
    Mr. Renton: Certainly.

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. I (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Ede.]
The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 105.

Division No. 127.]

AYES

[3.34 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Price, M. Philips

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Proctor, W. T.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Ranger, J

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Guy, W. H.

Rankin, J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hale, Leslie

Rees-Williams, D R

Attewell, H. C.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Reeves, J

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Austin, H. Lewis

Hardy, E. A.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Robens, A.

Ayles, W. H.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bacon, Miss A

Hicks, G.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Balfour, A.

Holman, P.

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Barton, C.

Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Battley, J. R.

Horabin, T L.

Royle, C.

Benson, G.

Houghton, A L N D

Scollan, T.

Beswick, F.

Hoy, J.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Blackburn, A. R.

Hubbard, T.

Segal, Dr. S.

Blenkinsop, A.

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

Shackleton, E. A A

Blyton., W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Sharp, Granville

Boardman, H.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Bowen, R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Simmons, C. J.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

Skeffington, A. M.

Bramall, E. A.

Janner, B.

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Brook, D. (Halifax)

John, W.

Skinnard, F. W.

Broughton., Dr. A. D. D.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

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

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Kendall, W. D.

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

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Kenyon, C.

Snow, J. W.

Burden, T. W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Solley, L. J.

Burke, W. A.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Sorensen, R. W

Byers, Frank

Kinley, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Carmichael, James

Kirby, B. V.

Sparks, J. A

Chamberlain, R. A.

Kirkwood., Rt. Hon. D.

Stokes, R. R.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lang, G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Cluse, W. S.

Lavers, S.

Stross, Dr. B.

Cocks, F. S.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Stubbs, A. E

Collins, V. J.

Leonard, W.

Swingler, S.

Colman, Miss G. M

Leslie, J. R.

Symonds, A. L

Comyns, Dr. L.

Levy, B. W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Cooper, G.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lewis" J. (Bolton)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Cove, W. G.

Lindgren, G. S.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Crawley, A.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lyne, A. W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Daggar, G.

McAdam, W.

Tolley, L.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McGhee, H. G

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

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

McGovern, J.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Viant, S. P.

Deer, G.

McKinlay, A. S.

Walker, G. H.

Diamond, J.

MacLean, N. (Govan)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Dobbie, W.

McLeavy, F.

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

Dodds, N. N.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Warbey, W N.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Watkins, T. E.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Webb, M. (Bradford, G.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Weitzman, D,

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

West, D. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Monslow, W.

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

Ewart, R.

Moody, A. S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Fairhurst, F.

Morl, D. L.

Wilkes, L.

Farthing, W. J.

Naylor, T. E.

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Foot, M. M.

Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Oldfield, W. H.

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Orbach, M.

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

Gallacher, W.

Paget, R. T.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Willis, E.

Gilzean, A.

Parker, J.

Wyatt, W.

Glanville, J E. (Consett)

Pearson, A.

Yates, V. F

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Piratin, P.

Zilliacus, K.

Grenfell, D. R.

Popplewell, E.

Grey, C. F.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grierson, E.

Porter, C. (Leeds)

Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gammans, L. D.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Amory, D Heathcoat

Grimston, R. V.

Nutting, Anthony

Assheton., Rt. Hon. R

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Odey, G. W

Baldwin, A. E

Haughton, S G.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Barlow, Sir J.

Head, Brig. A. H

Peake, Rt Hon. O.

Beamish, Maj. T V. H

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

Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)

Beechman, N. A.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Bennett, Sir P.

Hollis, M. C.

Raikes, H. V.

Birch, Nigel

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bossom, A. C.

Hope, Lord J.

Renton, D.

Bower, N.

Hurd, A.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool. S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jennings, R.

Scott, Lord W

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Shephard. S (Newark)

Butcher, H. W.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Carson, E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Challen, C.

Langford-Holt, J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

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

Snadden, W. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Spence, H. R.

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

Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Crowder, Capt. John E

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

De la Bere, R.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Strauss, Henry (English Universilles)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Studholme, H. G.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maitland, Comdr. J W

Sutcliffe, H.

Donner, P. W

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Touche, G. C.

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Drayson, G. B.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Vane, W M. F

Drewe, C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Ward, Hon. G. R

Dugdale, Mai. Sir T. (Richmond)

Mellor, Sir J.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

York, C.

Erroll, F. J.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

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

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Morrison, Mai. J. G. (Salisbury)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Molt-Radclyffe, C. E.

Brigadier Mackeson and

Colonel Wheatley.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
  Order read for consideration, as amended.
  3.41 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop) rose—
  Captain Marsden: On a point of Order. Is it in Order when a Bill is presented by a Minister, for that Minister not to be present when it is discussed?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order for me.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I was about to say that I wish to express the regret of my right hon. Friend at his inability to be in the House this afternoon. I hope hon. Members will accept that expression of regret.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While I do not wish to be in any way unreasonable, I do think this is a somewhat difficult point. This is the first example of a new procedure, and, while we are perfectly willing to concede the necessities of Government to the Minister, I think something a little more explicit than the rather perfunctory words of the Parliamentary Secretary would be desirable.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not intend to be in any way perfunctory. As I think everyone will realise, my right hon. Friend the Minister and other of my right hon. Friends have urgent public business which they are bound to transact, and it is only natural that on occasions it is inevitable that my right hon. Friend should not be able to be present. I do not think any hon. Member would for a moment question my right hon. Friend's attendance in this House on the many Measures for which he has been responsible recently, both in the House and in Committee upstairs, and I think it would be a little churlish to raise the question of his non-attendance today. I
  1036
  assure the House that it is quite inevitable.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I quite agree it is inevitable that from time to time the Minister must be absent. But two Cabinet Ministers, two Privy Councillors, are named in this Bill, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think that on a Bill of importance like this a Privy Councillor should be here to explain what is, after all, a new departure in principle, and, if I may say so, a rather heavy-handed use of that procedure. We intend to draw attention to a declaration of no less a Member of the Government than the then Lord Privy Seal on this, and it is a little difficult with no Member of the Privy Council opposite to take note of our objections and convey them where they must be conveyed, namely to the Cabinet.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not a fact that this Bill comes before the House on the Report stage; and that it comes before the House under the provisions of a Measure passed by this House in this Parliament, which specifically provides that the Bill shall be treated as having passed its Second Reading and Committee stages? Therefore, there is no question of the Minister's attendance on this occasion.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would suggest that this is a very new idea, that Ministers of the Crown do not need to attend the Report stage of their Bills. I should have thought that that was exactly what you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair, with the Table as your base, would have expected —that the Minister could reasonably be expected to attend. That he should not be able to attend in Committee is inevitable at times, but this is the Report stage, at which Ministers do attend.
  Mr. Hale: The point originally put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that the Minister who had signed this Bill should be present for its Second Reading.
  Mr. Paget: Surely it has for a very long time been the custom at the Ministry of Health that water is one of the things looked after by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should be loath to circumscribe the privileges of

  1037
  the Parliamentary Secretary so rigorously and in such a limiting fashion as is now being suggested.
  Mr. Paget: I said it was one of the things.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that to say he gave special attention to water was placing a rather invidious limitation upon him. We are not saying that there are not occasions when a Minister cannot he present; but we do say that here two Ministers are involved, that a new procedure is involved, and that without any doubt a Privy Councillor ought to be present, because these are matters which affect a Cabinet committee; some of the Minister's proposed Amendments affect the setting up of a Cabinet committee. In those circumstances, I suggest that it would be very difficult to discuss this matter in the absence of both the Cabinet Ministers concerned. I do not think that we on this side are being unreasonable. Merely to say that the Minister of Health is not able to be here—and the Minister of Agriculture is apparently not to be here either—without saying whether or not he or his right hon. Friend is to be here at a later stage of the Sitting, or the nature of the duties upon which they are concerned, is taking a little too much upon the shoulders of a Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I really think that we might be allowed to proceed with this Measure.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Tell us what they are doing.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: It is quite unreasonable that we should on every occasion
  give hon. Gentlemen opposite a diary of the activities of every right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order. This is now being erected into a principle, and upon that I think I must ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment. I do not think it is unreasonable to move the Adjournment in order to obtain the attendance of a Privy Councillor responsible for this Bill. I, of course, leave that entirely to your discretion. I am arguing that on this occasion, in view of the defence of the principle which is being adduced by the Parliamentary Secretary, I am entitled to move the Adjournment.
  Mr. Speaker: The only Motion which would, I think, be in Order at this moment would be. "That further consideration of the Bill as amended be now adjourned."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Then I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill as amended be now adjourned."
  I do not wish to weary the House with a repetition of argument. I shall stand on the arguments that I have already adduced.
  Earl Winterton: Might I just say—
  Mr. Speaker: This Motion, like the Motion for the Adjournment, may be put without discussion if I so choose.
  Question put, "That further consideration of the Bill as amended be now adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes. 104; Noes, 198.

  Division No. 128.]

  AYES

  [3.52 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  De la Bere, R.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Hope, Lord J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Donner, P. W

  Hurd, A.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Drayson, G. B

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

  Beamish, Maj, T. V. H

  Drewe, C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Birch, Nigel

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Jennings, R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Bowen, R.

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Bower, N.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D. (Pollok)

  Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gammans, L. D.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Carson, E

  Grimston R. V.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Challen, C

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

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

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. F

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

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Touche, G. C.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

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

  Scott, Lord W.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  York, C.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Smithers, Sir W.

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

  Odey, G. W.

  Snadden, W. M

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Spence, H. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Guy. W. H.

  Price, M. Philips

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Hale, Leslie

  Proctor, W. T.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Randall, H. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Ranger, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Rees-Williams, O R.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Reeves, J.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Hicks, G.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Holman, P.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Horabin, T. L.

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Houghton, A, L. N. D.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Balfour, A.

  Hoy, J.

  Royle, C.

  Barton, C.

  Hubbard, T.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Battley, J. R.

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

  Segal, Dir. S

  Beswick, F

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Binns, J

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Sharp, Granville

  Blackburn, A. R.

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

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Janner, B.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Jeger, C. (Winchester)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Boardman, H.

  John, W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Kenyon, C.

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

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Snow, J. W.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.Ldr. E.

  Solley, L. J.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Kinley, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Kirby, B V.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Burden, T. W.

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Sparks, J. A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Lang, G.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Carmichael, James

  Lavers, S.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Swingler, S.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Leonard, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Levy, B. W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Collins, V. J

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  McAdam, W.

  Tolley, L.

  Daggar, G.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Vernon, Maj. W F.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Viant, S. P.

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

  McGovern, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Deer, G.

  McKinlay, A. S.

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

  Diamond, J.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Dobbie, W

  McLeavy, F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Dodds, N. N.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Weitzman, D.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  West, D. G.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh. E.)

  Ewart, R

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Farthing, W. J.

  Monslow, W.

  Wigg, George

  Foot, M. M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilkes, L.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Mort, D. L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Gallacher, W.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Gilzean, A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

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

  Glanville, J E. (Consett)

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Paget, R. T.

  Willis, E

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Wyatt, W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Parker, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Grierson, E.

  Pearson., A.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Popplewell, E.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden

  Bill, as amended, considered.

Schedule.—(THE MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER, 1948.)
Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "April," and to insert "June."
After this slight interruption, I hope Members will agree that it is desirable I should say a few words, in moving this first Amendment, on the procedure that is being adopted. Members will know that the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, provided a new procedure for the confirmation of orders by Ministers which were formerly provisional orders, and that this is the first contested order that has come before Parliament under this new procedure. An order was made by the Minister under the Water Act, 1945, after a long local inquiry at which representations both for and against the proposals were heard. As Members know, it constitutes a joint water board and gives power to the Northampton Corporation to construct works and abstract water from the River Nene. These powers will automatically vest in the joint board as from the appointed day.
After the order was made, certain of the local authorities and some other bodies affected by the order objected to some of the provisions, and so the order became subject to the special Parliamentary procedure. The objectors and the Minister were heard by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which made a number of Amendments. The Government do not wish to question the majority of these Amendments, some of which are quite considerable, including proposals for the alteration of the board's area. It is considered, however, that Amendments in two respects of principle made by the Joint Committee are undesirable and should therefore be brought before the House under this procedure.
The Amendment I am now proposing relating to the date of the operation of this order is one of a series which have become necessary because the original appointed day provided for in the order, 1st April, has already passed. The appointed day must, therefore, be postponed and this Amendment postpones it until 1st June next, which is considered to be the earliest practicable date. This date is suitable to the constituent authorities which will make up the future board. Those authorities are
1042
naturally anxious that matters should proceed, so far as possible, as though the board has been set up by 1st April and therefore, the charges which the constituent authorities have been making since 1st April have been in accordance with the provisions of the Order.
4.0 p.m.
It will be necessary for those authorities to carry on their own undertakings until 1st June, but it is suggested that when the board is established it should take over the receipts of the constituent authorities as between 1st April and 1st June and reimburse their expenditure during that same period. This Amendment, and the other Amendments which are consequential on it, make provision for these postponements which, as I say, are inevitable and facilitate, so far as possible, the carrying out of the proposal I have put to the House. I would add that the Amendments are acceptable to the constituent authorities.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The deletion of the word "April" would seem to be necessary, but when we come to "June" it seems to me that it may well be already out of date. The procedure which has been adopted is one which the Parliamentary Secretary has thought fit to explain on this Amendment, which may well be the approprite place to consider it, but under it—and I am sure the Home Secretary will take note of it—we are placed at a considerable disadvantage in not having either of the responsible Cabinet Ministers referred to in the Bill here today, or even within the precincts of the House. This is all the more important when one is dealing with pledges about the use of this procedure which were given in the most formal way on the Floor of the House by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) then, I think, Lord Privy Seal. When this legislation was going through the House—unlike his colleagues of today he thought it desirable that, as the responsible Minister, he should be present to deal with the Measure for which he was responsible—the right hon. Gentleman said:
"…I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition, or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180.]

1043
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this Measure was the subject of an inquiry. Opposition was lodged to it, and it then had to go before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament—a Committee, by the way, on which there was only one representative of the official Opposition, so it cannot be said to have been weighted in any party sense. This Committee undertook the usual careful examination of this Measure which a Joint Committee of that kind usually undertakes. The evidence heard occupied 184 pages, showing the great detail into which the Committee went—
Mr. Rankin: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that on the Joint Committee there was only one representative of the official Opposition, which is correct, but he ought to go further and say that of the six members there were only two from the Government side which, I think, in view of the numbers of Members on both sides of the House, shows that there was not very fair representation from the point of view of the Government.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member himself was a member of the Committee, and that would be a germane point if there had been discussion and a Division in the Committee. But its conclusion was unanimous and Government members are as much bound by a unanimous conclusion as Opposition members.
Mr. Rankin: I must point out that there was discussion in the Committee, and also a Division.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may well be.
Captain Marsden: As I was the one Member from this side who sat on that Joint Committee may I point out that when the one Government representative of that Committee from another place was ill his absence was accepted by the whole Committee and by learned counsel speaking for the Minister? May I also point out that no one here knows whether or not our decision was unanimous. We came to a decision as a Committee.
Mr. Rankin: That interruption shows what a generous attitude the Government took up in this matter.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Generous or not, it reveals one of the difficulties under which we are operating. We are operating under a procedure in which a decision of the Committee is announced by the Chairman. Every member of the Committee is bound by the decision of the Committee as announced by the Chair.
Mr. Rankin: I am sorry to interrupt, but a most important point has just been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is claiming that every member of the Joint Committee is bound by the decision of the Committee. I should like to know whether that is upheld by you, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss a report which has not been reported to this House. This is a question of minutes of proceedings which, I understand, have not been reported to the House.
Mr. Mitchison: I understood the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) to refer to a unanimous decision of the Committee. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden), who said that we in this House cannot know whether the decision was unanimous or not, and I should be glad to have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order in this House to refer to a decision of the Committee as being unanimous.
Mr. Speaker: If we have no knowledge of the minutes of proceedings, I presume not. We do not know whether or not the decision was unanimous.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I shall quote from a document laid before us. In page 162 it says:
"Counsel and parties are directed to with-draw, and after a short time are again called in."
That shows that some private discussion took place at that point, and that the proceedings afterwards became public. The following is an extract:
"Chairman: The Committee have decided—"
Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. Has the document from which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quoting been laid on the Table of this House? Will he state what is the document from which he is quoting?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly it has been tabled. This has been taken from the Vote Office and papers in the Vote Office are papers laid before the House. This is a document which any hon. Member can obtain for himself in the Vote Office. I am not attempting any sharp practices in this matter. This is a new procedure and we are all entitled to do the best we can to make it quite clear. It was with that in view that I said how difficult it was to carry on these discussions in the absence of the responsible Ministers concerned.
I go on to quote:
"Chairman: The Committee have decided that the intake at Duston is to remain at 20 million gallons per day and may be reduced below that, but not in any case below 16 million gallons, as and when and for as long as the Catchment Board notify that there is a necessity."
I am not going to argue the merits of that case because it will arise on a later Amendment. I am merely pointing out the way in which decisions are communicated and the way in which the Debate in this House has arisen. It goes on to say
"The Minister's application for power to extend the period of abstraction or to reduce the minimum flow cannot be acceded to."
I come back to the point which I was making when we began the' very necessary discussion on procedure—that this is a decision of a Committee handed down by the Chairman and which must be taken obviously as committing Members of that Committee at that time. I do not in any way suggest that they should not wish to change their opinions, but here is a decision of a Joint Committee of both Houses which the Minister in this Bill seeks to overturn. I suggest first of all that this is the use of the veto in circumstances to which it is quite inappropriate to apply it and to which it was never expected it would be applied.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really suggest that there is any valid comparison between the proper use of powers provided under an. Act passed by this House and the veto?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the two things are identical. Nobody has ever suggested that the use of the veto in
1046
international affairs was suddenly and arbitrarily interjected into international affairs. It was laid down after agreement, debate and discussion, and it is part of the procedure of the United Nations organisation. It has been contended on both sides that it has been unreasonably used. This procedure here has been unreasonably used. It is being used suddenly and arbitrarily and on a point to which we shall come in a moment but which may not arise for something like 20 years.
For a Minister to seek to reverse the decision of a Joint Committee of this House on a point admittedly of secondary importance, and on a point which certainly will take many years before it can be operated and on which, therefore, no urgency arises is directly contrary to the specific pledge given by the right hon. Member for Wakefield:
…we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposal; through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November. 1945; Vol. 415. c. 2180.]
The Minister no doubt will be acquainted with the fact that the promoters of the order did not object to the Amendments which were introduced by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that the further points of procedure which bring us to the date now suggested—a procedure undertaken by the Minister—will delay the proceedings. It has already caused delay, and the Amendments which the Minister is here bringing forward to delete the month of April in favour of the month of June—
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I made it clear that we have made arrangements with the constituent authorities to enable them to proceed so far as possible with the work so that there shall not be any unnecessary delay. In fact, some of these Amendments on the date cover that very point.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would not deny that the Minister is seeking to minimise the results of the action that he himself has taken. If he had agreed to the proposition that both Houses might know better than a Departmental Minister knows, all this would be unnecessary and the matter could have gone ahead. I have here a copy of the local paper, the "Northampton Mercury and Herald."

1047
indicating how very surprised all concerned were on the intimation of the postponement of the appointed day, which was received in a telegram from the Ministry of Health to the Town Clerk of Northampton. In fact, so upset were they that the local people came to London and interviewed the Minister. They received an assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has just repeated to the House, that the Minister would do his best to see that no undue delay was caused. I repeat that the Minister has adopted the procedure of a sledge hammer to crack an egg—a procedure which is delaying the provision of the water which the inhabitants of these areas seek to have.
Mr. Mitchison: No.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. and learned Member may be a great authority on many things, but I have as much experience of Parliamentary procedure as he has and to transform an order into an opposed Bill is not the way to accelerate business. He may not have noticed the fact that he has turned this Measure into an opposed Bill and that, as well as having to go through this House, where the Government and Minister command a majority, it has to go through another place where the Minister and Government do not command a majority. I submit that that all may well lead to delay beyond June, to which the matter has already been postponed by the direct action of the Minister himself.
Mr. Mitchison: What I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say, and what I took exception to, was that these steps had resulted or would result in some delay in the provision of water. I have met all the representatives of these local authorities, many of whom are in my own constituency, and I have gone very thoroughly into this matter. Whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may know about Parliamentary procedure, I know more at the moment about the provision of water for Mid-Northamptonshire than he does, and I say with some confidence that what has been done will not delay for a moment the provision of water in this area and that—
Mr. Speaker: This is really very irrelevant at the moment.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has exhausted his right to speak, but he is quite entitled to his opinion as to his knowledge of the provision of water for Northamptonshire. I also have given some attention to it over a long period of time. I was Minister of Agriculture at the time when the Catchment Boards were set up, and I have travelled every inch of the River Nene and I know every one of the points of view about the different matters. Nobody will deny that to hold up the passage of a Measure from this House is not the quickest way of accelerating the results of that order whatever else it does. Had the Minister been willing to defer to the views of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament he would not have involved us in the use of the lengthy and cumbersome procedure upon which we have embarked today.
We shall discuss very shortly the actual merits of the question raised on the first Amendment—the position of the Minister as against the Board. I say here and now that I am not at all sure that the Minister's tactics, which admittedly have resulted in delaying the passage of the Measure—I think that all Members of the House will be agreed on that point—will not result in a further delay of the passage of the Measure. If the Minister had been here he might have convinced us, but I do not think that we have been convinced by the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment, much as I should have liked to do so.
Mr. Rankin: I should like to say a word on the sort of general proposition that underlay the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, without dealing at all with the first Amendment. A good deal of difficulty follows from the fact that we are now facing a new procedure in the House. Some of this difficulty will be avoided if we try to seek an analogy between this procedure and existing procedure. When this order came to it, the Joint Committee was in the position of a committee where discussion took place, petitioners and counter-petitioners appeared, decisions were arrived at, and the order was

1049
amended, if necessary. Whether the discussions were unanimous or not is a point of difficulty, so far as the Joint Committee is concerned. There is nothing on record. All my copies of the report are marked "Confidential" and therefore I cannot use them.
We can set those aspects of the matter completely aside and say that this Bill has been in Committee; it is reported to the House and now it is in its Report stage, just like any other Bill. The determination of the Joint Committee is given to us in the form of a Bill which we are now considering on Report. It seems perfectly competent for the Minister at this stage to submit Amendments to the Bill, as is done repeatedly during the Business of the House. That is all that is now happening, so far as I can see. The Minister has decided that he will put forward certain Amendments on the Report stage of this Bill. I do not see that any accusation can be made against him that he is delaying the fulfilment of the Order or that he is indulging in any practice that can, by any stretch of imagination, be called a sharp practice. So far as I can judge, he is following the regular—[Interruption.]—I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any interruption to make. If so, I shall give way, and then I shall do my best to deal with it.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was waiting until the hon. Gentleman had finished his sentence. I hate to be interrupted myself in the middle of a sentence.
Mr. Rankin: I was pointing out that it was competent for the Minister, within the procedure of the House, to submit Amendments at this stage, as is often done upon a Report stage. As I see it, that is all that the Minister is now doing.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is a question of the interpretation of a pledge. The Minister is acting undoubtedly within the four corners of the Act. Otherwise he would be out of Order and he would be pulled up by the Chair. It is a question whether in this case the very explicit pledge given by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) is being borne out in the spirit as well as in the letter. I was contending that it is not. I was not at all contending, and I do not think that the hon. Member will find any such contention in my words,
1050
that the Minister is acting beyond the powers that have been entrusted to him.
Mr. Rankin: The point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just put involves an argument on whether the Minister in question actually made a pledge. If it is convenient, we should have explained to us the attitude of the Minister to the accusation that these Amendments are not Amendments that go to the root of the matter contained in the order. If we had some guidance on that matter from the Minister, it would help to resolve the difficulties that face His Majesty's Opposition.
Mr. Henry Strauss: The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said one thing with which I certainly agree. I shall say nothing about what happened in the Joint Select Committee, nor discuss in any way whether its decisions were unanimous, or anything of that kind. I simply accept their Report. I want to take the hon. Member up on two points. The first point is that he said that this Measure has come to the House on the Report stage like any other Measure. Of course, not like any other Public Bill but like other Private Bill legislation. That is a very important difference. I think that the hon. Member does not disagree with me. On the Report stage we interfere with the very greatest hesitation with the considered conclusions of committees that have considered these matters in a judicial manner upstairs. I hope that the hon. Member agrees with me so far, that it is altogether exceptional on the Report stage to take action of this kind.
Mr. Rankin: I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way. I would like to put this point to him. While I agree with what he was saying I think he is not denying to the Minister the right, if the Minister thinks fit, to take such action on the Report stage as has been taken in this case.
Mr. Strauss: I would not go so far as to agree with the hon. Member on that point, because I agree with what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend from the Front Bench. We are certainly not disputing the Minister's power. We are disputing the propriety of what he is doing.

1051
That leads me to the second point on which I hope to correct the hon. Member and carry him with me. He said that there was some question whether the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) was giving a pledge. Those were the hon. Member's words. He cast doubt on the question whether the right hon. Gentleman was giving a pledge. I am going to read not merely the sentence read by my right hon. and gallant Friend from the Front Bench but the sentence that immediately follows it, because this sentence puts the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever. Let me read the two sentences together, so that there can be no doubt about them:
"I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered."
Then follows this sentence:
"I think it would be wrong to use the Bill in that way, and so long as this Government continues I can assure hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180–2181.]
There is no question whatever that a deliberate and considered pledge was being given by His Majesty's Government, The matter has been considered by a Joint Select Committee. The Amendments, taken together, go quite outside the pledge.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Hale: The procedure we are following is precisely that laid down by Section 6 of the 1945 Act. It was a procedure expressly designed—it was so stated in the Section—to provide for a case where the Minister differed from any conclusion of the Joint Committee. It is now being suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) gave a general pledge that the Bill would not be used to sledge-hammer unpopular views through the House. It is fantastic to say that by some curious process he was giving a pledge not to use the Bill we were Debating and the provisions we were then passing. The Parliamentary Secretary says that his reason for deleting "April" and inserting "June" is that April has now gone and that it is now May. That seems a fairly substantial and quite modest reason to put for-
1052
ward. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) says he must have a Privy Councillor here to explain it to him so that he can fully discuss it and understand it. It is a matter for him to judge whether he can understand it without an explanation of that kind, but I have had no difficulty in understanding it and I shall have no difficulty in supporting the Government.
Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) explained that he can understand the difference between "April" and "June." Most of us can; at least it is usual to be able to understand that difference. We are, however, discussing a wider matter on the Amendment. With this procedure, if we wish to raise anything against the Minister, we have to do it on the first Amendment on the Order Paper. Therefore, although I could say more about "April" and "June," I want to do as other hon. Members have done and give my views on the use of this procedure.
Everyone realises that the Minister has full power to make these Amendments. We are not quarrelling with that power in the least. However, we say that after a new procedure is approved with the goodwill of all parties and a definite statement made—I will not call it a pledge—by a responsible Minister like the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), then, if the Minister really feels obliged to go against the decision of a Joint Committee of both Houses, we should have an explanation of the need for doing so from the Minister himself. That is putting it most charitably from the Minister's point of view. We agree that he can make a change, but we say that if he proposes to make a change it should be explained to the House very fully.
I go further than that and say that it will go against the best traditions of the House, if a Minister is to be able to upset the decision of hon. Members of all parties working together and acting as judges and not as Parliamentarians in the sense that we are here. Very few know the traditions and the procedure of the House better than the Minister of Health. If he were on this side of the House and free from Ministerial responsibility, he would be the first person to protest against this procedure. Before this Par-

1053
liament he was always very strictly in favour of keeping the understandings and Rules of the House. I cannot do otherwise than very strongly deprecate the fact that he is not here this afternoon. I am glad to see the Home Secretary here. I hope he will explain fully to the House why the Government are seeking to overturn the 'proceedings of the Joint Committee. I am in no way seeking to minimise what the Parliamentary Secretary has done. He had a difficult point with which to deal. Any Parliamentary Secretary might be left with a baby like that; I have often seen it done, but very rarely have I seen it done in such a way that when the acting Leader of the Opposition states his case clearly, no effort is made to have here a Cabinet Minister to explain what has happened.
We are bound to accept the Amendment, but are we sure that June is the right date? This is the House of Commons and we can speak only for ourselves. Are we sure that another place will not accept the decision of the Joint Committee? If that occurs, it is quite likely that June will not be a suitable operating date. I ask the Home Secretary and the Patronage Secretary to consider this matter not from the point of view of a Private Bill but as a point of procedure of considerable importance. It is a point which we all hope will operate easily and to the advantage of Private Bill legislation in the future. A really serious situation has arisen this afternoon, and I urge upon whoever is to reply for the Government that it would be better in the circumstances to have here the Minister who is responsible for it, to explain to us why he has gone against the decision of the Joint Committee and why we are being asked to accept this decision. I am sure that the Home Secretary will accept it that I am not saying this in any hostile spirit. There are occasions when the House has a right to expect the same treatment as the Minister would expect if he were in opposition. This is a serious matter relating to the smooth working of a system which is quite different from the party politics of the House and depends on the goodwill of the House. I hope the Minister will meet our point in some way.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I do not intend
1054
to deal with the merits of this Amendment or any of the subsequent Amendments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is perfectly competent to deal with all of them and is fully informed on the policy of his Minister. The Opposition must be gluttons for punishment if they prefer on these occasions to have the Debate answered by the Minister of Health rather than the Parliamentary Secretary for I should have thought that they might be treated rather more roughly if the Minister himself were here.
I want to deal with the points that have been raised with regard to procedure. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) got us into a little trouble, I think unnecessarily, by saying at one stage that the report of the Committee was unanimous. It may have been unanimous, but only the members of the Committee know that. It is not disclosed to this House, quite rightly I think, whether a Committee is unanimous or not. It is some years since I served on a Private Bill Committee, but my recollection is that arguments on both sides are heard. the room is then cleared—
Mr. McKie: The chairman—
Mr. Ede: I am trying to deal with it chronologically. Hon. Members may differ. They may agree. I can recall occasions when the five members of a Private Bill Committee were not always unanimous. There was a decision, and whatever the majority said was announced by the chairman as the decision of the Committee. Quite rightly he does not say that by a majority the Committee have decided.
Mr. McKie: The chairman gives the result.
Mr. Ede: Never in my experience. The chairman of the Committee says, "The Committee have decided," and that is the decision of the Committee. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly said. it binds the Committee just as a decision of this House for the time being binds all the Members of the House, no matter into which Lobby they may have gone when the Question was put. It would be perfectly competent for any member of the Committee, if he had not agreed with the decision of his Committee, when the

1055
matter is raised down here on Report stage on any of those Bills, to vote against the decision that has been announced upstairs, and it may even have been done on occasion. Therefore I think that some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) arose from the possibly accidental use by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the word "unanimous."
Now I come to the other questions raised. It is suggested that in some way or other the procedure this afternoon is a breach of the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) when he was Lord Privy Seal and Deputy Leader of the House on the occasion when the procedure under which we are operating today was established. I think that is pitching the case a great deal too high because, if it means anything at all, it means that on no occasion must a Minister bring before the House an Amendment to one of these provisional order Bills when they have been before a Select Committee.
Captain Marsden: Much more was said than that. It was said that the form of the Amendment which the Minister would bring before this House would get at the very root of the Bill and that smaller Amendments which were really of a technical nature, and which might prove or disprove themselves in time, could be settled by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that only those Amendments which really got at the root and structure of the Bill should be brought before this House.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Ede: We shall be able to discuss on the later Amendments whether they are technical matters or whether they are matters which go to the root and structure of the Bill.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but we are discussing very relevant words in that respect. If the powers of the Minister have been abused by the use of what strength he has in an improper manner, then it has necessitated the very Amendment we have under discussion. The Minister has brought about the delay, and we claim that he has brought about the delay by using his powers improperly.
Mr. Ede: The Amendment under discussion is whether it should be April or June, which is a matter that has become necessary by the effluxion of time.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. It has been brought about—
Mr. Ede: It is necessary to put "June" instead of "April" because April has now passed. I do not intend to be drawn any more on that point.
With regard to the nature of the further Amendments, I suggest we deal with them when we reach them, and that we shall then be able to discuss whether they come within the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield or not. I want to make it quite clear that it cannot be thought that this stage of the Bill is to be purely formal, and that the Minister is precluded on appropriate occasions from putting down suitable Amendments. There may be a question as to whether some of these later Amendments are appropriate ones to come within the scope of the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Wakefield, and I have no doubt that if that issue is raised, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be quite competent to deal with it. I do not want it to be thought that we are in any way going back on the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. If there is a feeling on the opposite side that in some of these Amendments such a recession from his position has taken place, I have no doubt we shall hear about it on the appropriate Amendment. Although we do not go back on that pledge, we cannot accept the principle that in no circumstances could the Minister put down an Amendment.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I fully accept the position which the right hon. Gentleman has put that the procedure is intended to be used. It is the propriety with which it is being used on this occasion with which we quarrel, and which we shall argue as and when we come to the Amendments. Again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must deal with this matter on the Amendments, and we have only had to deal with it now because the Parliamentary Secretary took the opportunity of this, the first Amendment, to expound the procedure under

1057
which we are working, and we could not let it go by default but had to register our position on the matter.
Mr. Mitchison: It seems to me to be a serious matter when suggestions are made that a pledge which was undoubtedly given is being broken, and it is in the best interests of this House, apart from any party question, that that sort of accusation should not be made lightly. If it is made, it should be looked at rather closely. I could not help observing that all the hon. Members who referred to these words of the Lord Privy Seal quoted from a paper which does not contain their context, and their context seems to me to be exceedingly important.
Section 4 of the Special Procedure Act, under which we are operating here today, deals with the possibility of this House itself dealing with private legislation by a Prayer at a stage before it goes to any Joint Committee. Section 5, which is the one applicable today, deals with the procedure of a Joint Committee and of what we call the Report stage here today. When this Act was first introduced as a Bill the Lord President of the Council, not the Lord Privy Seal, made it perfectly clear what was intended by Section 5. He pointed out that in that he was really following a Scottish procedure. At the time of Second Reading that was accepted, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) saying for the Opposition that they reserved the right to consider the matter in Committee. The phrase was used by the hon. Member for The High Peark (Mr. Molson) that they were very anxious that the Act should not be used as a bulldozer. The way in which he feared it might be used as a bulldozer was by having private orders annulled on a Prayer before ever they got to the Joint Committee.
The passage which has been quoted from HANSARD was part of the Lord Privy Seal's reply to a speech made by the hon. Member for The High Peak. It was the hon. Member for The High Peak who had himself introduced, by way of Amendment, Clause 5 as it stands at present, and the Lord Privy Seal on that occasion accepted the Clause; that is why it is there. The pledge he gave had nothing whatever to do with this particular Clause. It was concerned with the other point, the question of whether the
1058
machinery of annulment by Prayer—Section 4—should be used as a bulldozer. If anyone looks at column 2180 of Volume 415 of HANSARD, they will find the words which have been so extensively quoted. [Interruption.] It is wrong on the piece of paper to which hon. Members are referring.
Mr. Ede: Perhaps they quoted from the unbound copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Mitchison: I shall trouble the House for a minute or two because these matters are of importance and charges of bad faith ought not to be lightly made and ought to be carefully supported and scrutinised.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that. The Lord Privy Seal began by referring to a Scottish matter and then saying that he wished to express his sincere appreciation of the services of the hon. Member for The High Peak Division, for that hon. Member had just made a speech in which he used the "bulldozer" metaphor again and referred again to the point of whether the Act might not be used to prevent Private Bills getting upstairs at all by means of a Prayer under Section 4. The speech of the Lord Privy Seal continues like this:
"My hon. Friend "—
the hon. Member for The High Peak Division—
"referred to the statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) on the Second reading about whether this Bill was going to be used ruthlessly. The term 'bulldozer' was used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I may say that in that very Debate he was reminded by an hon. Member that he, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, had had a good deal to do with laying this egg, because the Bill was largely his work. I do not know what he contemplated.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th Novembers 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180.]
Then the Lord Privy Seal goes straight on to the words which have been extensively quoted. It is quite clear to anybody who looks at HANSARD and at the course of the discussion that the Lord Privy Seal was not talking at all about the question under Section 5—that is to say, to what extent this House should.

1059
on the Report stage, interfere with what had been done by the Joint Committee upstairs—but on a quite different matter: to what extent the Prayer procedure under Section 4 should be used to prevent a Bill going upstairs to a Joint Committee at all.
Mr. H. Strauss: May I put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He mentioned Section 5. I think he will agree that we are also concerned with Section 6, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). Is it the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman that under the procedure in the proviso to Section 6 (2) it is proper for the Minister to introduce Amendments which, in fact, fundamentally alter the decisions of the Joint Select Committee?
Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am concerned with one thing, and one thing only, and I should like to make quite clear what I have been trying to say. There was a major point raised, and raised by the Opposition and particularly by the hon. Member for The High Peak, during the passage of the Bill. That major point had nothing to do with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just been talking about. It was the question whether annulment by Prayer might be used as a bulldozer. The phrase was repeated once or twice and the apprehension of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who spoke in a similar sense was that the special procedure might work as a bulldozer by preventing Private Bills getting before a Joint Committee at all. There was a considerable discussion and a good many speeches about the inadequacy of Prayers and so on.
That was the point to which that pledge was directed. In its context it is perfectly clear that that was the main point, and not the quite different point now being considered, namely, the extent to which this House should use its powers to reconsider matters which have been decided already, in one sense or another, by a Joint Committee upstairs. I wanted to make that point perfectly clear. I think that anyone who will look through the Debates in HANSARD, which are rather difficult to quote extensively in a speech here, will find that what I am saying is quite correct in substance, at any rate in my view.
1060
I only want to add a few words on the particular Amendment we are considering. I repeat, if I may, that I know the stage which the preliminary works or negotiations for the provision of the water supply under this order have reached; and that not only am I personally convinced, which might, perhaps, matter little to the House, but that all the local authorities concerned are also convinced, that the effect of the delay in Parliamentary procedure occasioned by these matters will not prejudice or delay in any way the actual provision of the water supply that is so badly needed by these areas in mid-Northamptonshire.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has expended a great deal of effort in the last two days in coming to the rescue of the Government. His effort on this occasion is, perhaps, not his most successful one. He has done his utmost to convince us that the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal was a pledge relating solely to the Prayers which could be brought under Section 4 of the Act and had no application to Section 6, under which this particular matter now comes before the House.
Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman and I hope he will excuse me, but I did not go as far as that. What I wanted to make quite clear was that the pledge was given on that point and that that was what was being discussed and considered when the pledge was given.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong if he says that the pledge was given on that point. He is clearly wrong. If he will read the pledge again he will see that it does not refer to Prayers, it does not refer to Section 4, but it refers to the Bill. The words are perfectly general:
"I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without regard to all the interests.…"
The hon. and learned Member has done his best to convince us that when the Lord Privy Seal said "this Bill" he did not mean "this Bill," but the right of praying under Section 4. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to defend himself

1061
against any attack for not saying what he meant, but the hon. and learned Member is obviously wrong. The pledge went on:
"…so long as this Government continues, I can assure hon Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180–1]
I agree with the Home Secretary that at the moment we cannot express an opinion because we have not come to discuss the material Amendments as to whether or not this pledge has been honoured, but I feel quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman makes inquiries, he will find that neither the promoters of the water board, nor the objectors to the water board regard either Amendment as going to the root of the matter and, if their views are correct, it is clear that this pledge so clearly given, so explicit in its phraseology is not being honoured today.
Mr. Paget: The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) really will not do. When the Measure was being discussed the only Clause which the Opposition suggested could be used for bulldozing—that was the phrase used—for bulldozing the Joint Committee was Clause 4. Clause 4 was the only Clause as to which anxiety was expressed. When the Lord Privy Seal spoke of the Bill and referred to that particular phrase, he was obviously referring to what the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) had been saying. It is easy to extract things out of their context, but if one looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT of what was said at the time it is quite obvious that he was referring to Clause 4, the only matter as to which anxiety has been expressed.
Captain Marsden: As we shall have to come to a decision on these Amendments, may I recapitulate what is the position? A statutory order was made by the Minister a little time ago. There was no Prayer in this House against it, but there were petitions of the parties concerned against the order and it was to deal with those petitions that the Joint Committee was set up. It was a good Committee, very carefully chosen. I always find it a pleasure to be on that sort of Committee where one may say:
"Then none was for a party; Then all were for the State."
1062
No one could have known the politics of any of us on that Committee. We had arrayed before us a large number of learned gentlemen with their clerks, Parliamentary agents and expert witnesses brought at great expense from all parts of the country to justify a petition and, in some cases, a counter-petition. We looked into this with great care, considerably greater care, than the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary has ever exercised. We came to certain decisions. We thought the order would go through in that form, but not a bit of it. A Bill was presented by the Minister with one name on it—the name of the Minister himself. He can depute the work to his Parliamentary Secretary, but no individual Member can put down an Amendment unless his name is on the Order Paper and he is here himself. A Member cannot depute the work, but the Minister can. The Home Secretary, with his usual courtesy, filled the breach to a certain extent and told us that we were lucky the Minister was not here, or we should have been roughly handled. I can assure him that we are not afraid of the Minister, even if some of the Members of his own party are.
I shall not enter into the arguments which have been put forward recently, but I shall refer to what I hinted at in an interjection. I read through these matters very carefully from a layman's point of view to get the sense of the matter rather than the written word. To my mind, the sense is very obvious—that where in the Joint Committee we dealt with Amendments which were normally Amendments to any Bill, the decision of the Joint Committee should be accepted, but where there were Amendments or petitions which had upset the whole Bill, the Minister would have the right to bring in a Bill, as he has done.
The Amendments before the House will be argued in due course and I shall not anticipate what the House will say, but I do not think anyone will say that they are serious enough to wreck the whole Bill. If we on the Joint Committee had accepted all the petitions, the Minister might have asked, "What sort of a Committee is this? They accept everything and the Bill is not what it was when it was a statutory order." But there was nothing of the sort. There are two comparatively minor provisions

1063
by which the Minister has sought to make an order under the 1945 Act for purposes for which it was never intended.
I hope the House will support the Committee, and that hon. Members will think for a moment of Committees they have been on or will be on in the future. We went on day after day, costing a great deal of time and expense to petitioners and to the country and retaining the services of learned counsel; and then the Minister, by a mere stroke of the pen, says, "I do not like it, start afresh." Why is not the Minister here to answer for himself? Where is he?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I wish to draw attention to two points which have been made by hon. and learned Members opposite. We have had a long dissertation on the question of what a pledge meant and a longer dissertation on the meaning of the word "Bill." According to hon. Members opposite, the word only means those parts of the Bill to which they wish to draw attention, but we on this side of the House, when we speak of a Bill, mean the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. Hon. Members opposite are meticulous and can split hairs, but apparently they are not capable of understanding the perfectly simple word "Bill." What is more important is that what has emerged from hon. and learned Gentlemen shows a grave rift in the Socialist Party. The Home Secretary comes here full of courage and admits honestly, with his hand on his heart, that a pledge was made and that he is prepared to honour it; but two hon. and learned Gentlemen, within a few minutes.
cast him to the wolves and say that no pledge was given at all, and, if it was, it referred only to a comma and not to a full stop.
Mr. Mitchison: In my first sentence I said a pledge was undoubtedly given and I did not throw doubt upon it. The question is the context in which it was given. That is a matter of common sense.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: But the hon. and learned Gentleman has really only endorsed what I have just said. Of course, he admits that a pledge was given, but according to him it was a pledge which referred only to one phrase in the Bill; but when his right hon. Friend gave the pledge it did not refer to one phrase but to the whole Bill. No one who reads the words which the right hon. Gentleman used can differ from that. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Home Secretary, sitting in front of him, who has admitted it. The Leader of the House himself would admit it; he looks as though he would admit anything at the moment. It is really very shocking that a split in the Socialist Party should be exposed. I do not mind the loss to the Socialist Party, but I think that the loss of the time of this House which is being taken up by the hon. and learned Members destroying the arguments of their own Front Bench, is a very wrong thing to have happened.
Question, "That 'April,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question put, "That 'June.' be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes. 220; Noes, 128.

Division No. 129.]

AYES

[5.12 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Bramall, E. A.

Diamond, J.

Adams, Richard (Baham)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Dobbie, W

Albu, A. H.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Dodds, N. N

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Donovan, T.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Alpass, J. H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Burke, W. A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Attewell, H. C.

Carmichael, James

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Awbery, S. S.

Cluse, W S.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Ayles, W. H.

Cocks, F. S,

Ewart, R.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Collins V J

Fairhurst, F.

Bacon, Miss A.

Colman, Miss G M

Farthing, W. J

Balfour, A.

Cooper, G.

Follick, M

Barton, C.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Foot, M. M.

Battley, J. R.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J.

Daggar, G.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Bing, G. H. C.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Gaflacher, W.

Blenkinsop, A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Ganley, Mrs C S

Blyton, W. R.

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

Gilzean, A.

Boardman, H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Glanville, J E. (Consett)

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W

Deer, G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Delargy, H. J.

Grenfell, D R

Grey, C. F.

McLeavy, F

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

Grierson, E.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Simmons, C. J.

Hale, Leslie

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Skeffington, A. M

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Mann, Mrs. J.

Skeffingion-Lodge, T. C.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Skinnard, F. W.

Hardy, E. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

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

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Mayhew, C. P.

Snow, J. W.

Hicks, G.

Messer, F.

Sorensen, R. W

Holman, P.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Soskice, Rt. Han. Sir Frank

Horabin, T. L.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Stokes, R. R.

Houghton, A. L N D

Mitchison, G. R.

Stross, Dr. B.

Hoy, J.

Monslow, W.

Swingler, S.

Hubbard, T.

Moody, A. S.

Sylvester, G. O.

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

Morley, R

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Hughes, Emry.s (S. Ayr)

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

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

Moyle, A.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Janner, B.

Naylor, T. E.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

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

Thurtle, Ernest

Jenkins, R. H.

Oldfield., W. H.

Tolley, L.

John, W.

Oliver, G H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Johnston, Douglas

Orbach, M.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Paget, R. T.

Walkden, E

Kenyon, C.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Walker, G. H

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)

King, E M.

Parker, J.

Warbey, W N

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

Parkin, B. T.

Watkins, T. E

Kinley, J.

Peart, T. F.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

Kirby, B. V.

Popplewell, E.

Weitzman, D.

Kirkwood., Rt. Hon. D

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wells, P. L (Faversham)

Lang, G.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Lavers, S.

Price, M. Philips

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

Leonard, W.

Randall, H. E.

Whiteley, Rt Hon W

Leslie, J R.

Ranger, J.

Wigg, George

Levy, B. W.

Rankin, J.

Wilkes, L.

Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)

Reeves, J.

Wilkins, W A

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Raid, T. (Swindon)

Willey, F T (Sunderland)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Rhodes, H.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Logan, D. G.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Lyne, A. W.

Robens, A.

Williams, W. R (Heston)

McAdam, W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Willis, E

McEntee, V. La T.

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Wyatt, W.

McGovern, J.

Royle, C.

Yates. V. F

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Scollan, T.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

Segal, Dr. S.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Mckinlay, A. S.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Sharp, Granville

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Fox, Sir G.

Linstead, H. N.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Lloyd Selwyn (Wirral)

Barlow, Sir J.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

Low, A. R. W.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Lucas.-Tooth, S. H.

Birch, Nigel

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Bowen, R.

Glyn, Sir R.

McKie. J. H. (Galloway)

Bower, N.

Gridley, Sir A.

MacLeod, J.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Grimston, R. V

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Marlowe, A. A. H

Buchan-,Hepburn, P. G. T.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Marples, A. E.

Butcher, H. W.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Butler, Rt Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Carson, E

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Challen, C

Hollis, M. C.

Mellor, Sir J

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Wilson, A. H. E

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O

Hope, Lord J.

Morris-Jones, Sir H

Crowder, Capt. John E

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Davidson, Viscountess

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

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

Drayson, G. B.

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

Drewe, C.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Neven, Spence, Sir B

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Jennings, R.

Nicholson, G.

Eccles, D. M.

Keeling, E. H.

Noble, Comdr. A. H P

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Lancaster., Col. C. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Walter

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

Odey, G. W.

Erroll, F. J.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

O'Neill. Rt. Hon Sir H

1066

1067

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smithers, Sir W.

Wakefield, Sir W, W.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Snadden, W. M.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Pickthorn, K.

Spearman, A. C. M.

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

Raikes, H. V.

Spence, H. R.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Rayner, Brig, R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Studholme, H. G.

York, C.

Ropner, Col. L.

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Scott, Lord W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Major Conant and

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Touche, G. C.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Turton, R. H.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32 to leave out "Catchment Board," and to insert, "Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
We now come to one of the major Amendments which we are proposing to the Bill, and the main reason for which the Bill has been introduced into this House. Section 7 (3) of the Schedule to the Bill will authorise the joint board to abstract up to 20 million gallons of water a day from the River Nene in the winter months from 1st October to 30th April after a new reservoir has been constructed and brought into use. The Nene Catchment Board represented to the Joint Committee that the winter flow of the river will not always be sufficient to allow of that rate of extraction without interference with other very proper river interests. The Joint Committee decided that if the catchment board considered that it was necessary, having regard to the state of the river, to reduce the rate of extraction, then they should be empowered to require the corporation to reduce that abstraction rate to such amount not less than 16 million gallons as they thought fit on any day they regarded it as necessary.
The Government recognise the fact that there may be periods of drought in which it would not be right to abstract the full quantity which is provided for, and they agree that the order should make provision for this emergency. But the Government cannot accept the view that it is right that a question of this kind, which affects very considerably the two interests involved, should be finally decided by one party to the matter. Therefore the Amendment very properly provides for the question to be determined, the final issue of any reduction in the abstraction rate, by my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
1068
This we regard as an issue of principle which goes to the root of the order because we must insist that those who have water-consuming interests in this area shall be protected as well as the very proper interests of the catchment board. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friends have a direct responsibility in this matter it is only proper that the final decision should lie in their hands.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This brings us to the issue which sharply divides those who are in favour of the Minister's proposal, which I trust is not simply the Minister's party, and those who are opposed to it which again I trust are not simply the parties in Opposition. The matter should be discussed—and we have the assurance of one of the hon. Members who sat upon the Committee that it was so discussed there—without any suggestion of party bias arising. But the Parliamentary Secretary brings up a very difficult point where he says they regard this as a matter of such principle as to make it cut at the very root of the Bill. Frankly, on the face of it, one would not suggest that any matter of this extreme importance was concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary's own words were, regarding the rate of abstraction of a certain quantity of water from the river, "after a new reservoir has been constructed and brought into use." The first point is that that period is far in the future.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Not so very far in the future.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, how long?
Mr. Blenkinsop: It is expected in 1954. at the very latest.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Even so, nobody can suggest that 1954 is actually breathing down the back of anybody's neck just now. The Minister, with his unusually acute sense of hearing, hears "Time's winged chariot hurrying near" even at

1069
that distance of time. I would suggest a further point that this reservoir has not only to be brought into use, but fully into use. It is not suggested by anybody that it will be brought fully into use for a period of some 15 to 20 years. Therefore in the first place urgency does not arise.
Secondly the Minister asks us to provide against the unreasonableness of elected bodies. That is surely a very rash assumption to make. It does support and key in with the general distrust of elected bodies which this Government shows in all its legislation—
Mr. Blenkinsop: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me to say so, I did not refer to the unreasonableness of elected bodies. I was referring to the perfectly reasonable but conflicting national interests involved.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but I would go a little further than the Minister, and suggest that two perfectly reasonable bodies would be ex hypothesi assumed to be able to come to a reasonable composition of their difficulties.
Mr. Blenkinsop: But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not put words into my mouth which I certainly did not use.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I suggest that that is a perfectly legitimate interpretation —[Interruption.] Is it not a correct interpretation of the Minister's words? The suggestion is that the catchment board would act with such unreasonableness in this matter as to demand the intervention of the Cabinet, for that is the Minister's proposal which I shall come to in a moment—
Mr. Hale Mr. Hale rose—
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let me finish my sentence and then I have no objection to being interrupted. I merely say that to suggest that two bodies concerned with a supply of water would act so unreasonably that nothing but the Cabinet would be capable of settling it—
Mr. Hale: I do not wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to misrepresent my hon. Friend, and I have his words precisely in my recollection. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the Minister referred to the unreasonableness of elected bodies. The point which the
1070
Minister made perfectly clear was that one body was necessarily an interested party, and ought not to have to decide between the other interested party and itself.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I sympathise greatly with the Minister in the way that people, sometimes not quite competent to do so, rush to his defence on every possible occasion. The Minister is perfectly capable of defending himself, and I have a higher opinion of him than some hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Hale: I was not defending the Minister. I was attacking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member was defending the Minister and misquoting me at the same time. I do not object to him misquoting me. What I object to him doing is defending the Minister. His misquotation of me was because of not paying sufficient attention to what I was saying. I do not blame him for that. I only blame him for interrupting.
The Minister suggests that it is necessary to take precautions against the unreasonableness of elected bodies, and the fact of that unreasonableness being shown in carrying their quarrel to a pitch where it could be decided only by the British Cabinet. Really, that is a striking example of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I cannot believe that the Minister wishes to bring this argument before us as an argument which it is necessary for the House to pay attention to, unless indeed he has some further views about these bodies and the degree to which they ought to be subordinated to Ministers, which l do not think has been brought forward and which I do not think is really in his mind.
The proposal then is that after the matter has been thoroughly examined by the joint committee of both Houses the words "Catchment Board" were inserted. All the arguments which the Minister has brought forward were before the Joint Committee on that occasion. That Committee was able to devote far more time and hear far more evidence on the matter than we can do in this House. No suggestion that the River Nene Catchment Board had acted unreasonably was ever laid before the Joint Committee. Indeed the proposals—
Mr. Blenkinsop: Might I say that the matter has not arisen yet, because the proposals under which this will work are not yet operating.
5.30 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This originally came from a proposal from the River Nene Catchment Board to give water to Northampton during the great drought in 1944. It was the proposal of the board. It is the proposal of the board which is now accused, many years in advance of the danger of action. It was from the generous, foresighted, reasonable and statesmanlike action of the board that the whole scheme originated. It was the board who suggested that the water could be drawn from the River Nene and used to supplement the supplies of the area. I suggest that that board which was capable of such foresighted conduct might well be trusted to be equally foresighted in its conduct in future years.
The board is a singularly enlightened body. It is presided over by an ex-Member of this House, an ex-President of the Trades Union Congress, in a most enlightened fashion. I do not know whether more to admire the enlightened conduct of Mr. George Dallas in the chair or the enlightened opinions of those who are certainly not all of his own political way of thinking who elected him to that position and have since maintained him there. There is only one further example of tolerance that I could give, and that is that this strongly English body elected a compatriot of mine to that position, thereby showing a very enlightened attitude indeed.
This board has been known as one of the most progressive bodies in England. It has been held up to admiration by Sir William Beach Thomas as one of the most scientific of the water bodies and one of the most scientific public bodies in England. Its conduct of its affairs can be judged in the fact that, in spite of the unparalleled floods which swept away many of the defences in the areas of many other water boards, the River Nene was able to deal with the huge quantities of water cast upon it in the great floods. It is a scientific, foresighted and public-spirited body. It is a body to which such a responsibility as was entrusted to it by a Joint Committee of both Houses can reasonably be left.
1072
The proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary is that it should not be so left. The Minister proposes the remarkable solution of a Cabinet Committee. He suggests that it should be decided by a Cabinet Committee. It could scarcely be believed that Ministers would bring forward a proposal that the point at which one could safely abstract another million gallons of water from a river which rises rapidly and where the flush of the water may rapidly pass—that the moment at which it is safe to begin to take water, or to continue or reduce the abstraction —cannot be decided by the men on the spot but must go through a committee of the British Cabinet. That is really a mid-Summer madness. According to the Amendment, this is not to be decided by just one Minister. As I say, it is a Cabinet Committee—the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. It may not always be that the Minister of Agriculture is so willing to defer to every word of the Minister of Health as apparently he has been in the framing of this proposal. The Home Secretary twitted us about the formidable nature of the Minister of Health. Apparently, formidable as he may be to the Opposition, that is nothing compared with his conduct when he gets into a committee with his colleagues.
The only argument for a Committee of the Cabinet could be that that Committee would decide, as far as one can see, on the ipse dixit of the Minister of Health, and decide so rapidly that one could scarcely find what the reason is of the argument by which it is suggested that it should be referred to them at all. Why does the Minister think that a Cabinet Committee in Downing Street can decide more rapidly and more accurately than the men on the spot when it is safe to abstract or not to abstract water from the River Nene in order to fill this reservoir? The Parliamentary Secretary has advanced no argument whatever. He has merely said that the Minister does not like it. I suggest that the likes and dislikes of the Minister are not sufficient to convince this House.
After all, these are public bodies which have been set up by Parliament and entrusted with great duties. They have enormous powers in carrying out public works, and they have great responsibilities. If they fail in these responsibilities,

1073
great disasters come to the populations in the areas concerned. But on this point of the abstraction of water, the Minister says that they are not fit to exercise this responsibility. He says that this responsibility must be referred to the joint wisdom of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health sitting in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street.
What is the size of this proposal? say definitely that unless we are to take the Minister's distrust of public bodies as the principle which he wishes to establish—
Mr. Gallacher: That is a misrepresentation.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There are two hypotheses—either that the Minister is moved by a desire to insist himself upon deciding when it is safe or not safe to make a variation of a million gallons of water per day in the intake into the reservoir of water from the River Nene, or he is being moved by the argument that he cannot trust the public bodies which have been set up to settle this exact question.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I have already pointed out that it is no reflection at all upon the catchment board, who have particular duties with regard to the area they control, to say that the interests of the board are necessarily at some times different from the interests of the water board which will be set up under this Measure. One is concerned with the problem of the supply of water to the area they cover, and the other is concerned more particularly with the flow of the river. Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that the suggestion we are making here is perfectly reasonable. We say that under those conditions, the two Ministers who are responsible to this House are the Ministers who must have the final decision.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In the first place, all those arguments were adduced at great length before a Joint Committee of both Houses and completely failed to convince them. Secondly, the suggestion that the River Nene Catchment Board is not concerned with the general interests of the inhabitants of the area is throwing upon the board an accusation either of lack of public duty or an absence of common sense, and neither accusation is justified by the facts. I have already outlined the case. I think the Minister is
1074
trying to wave off a contention which really cannot so easily be disposed of, when he suggests that the River Nene Catchment Board are only concerned with the flow of water down the river, which is disproved by the facts I have given. These show that it was the River Nene Catchment Board which made the proposal for the use of this water for the benefit of Northampton and other boroughs. I say that the catchment board is a public body which may safely be trusted with responsibilities of this kind; that is the position which commended itself to a Joint Committee of hon. Members of this House, and that is the view which the Minister now seeks to overthrow.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the pledge of the Minister referred only to certain contingencies, and that was pretty effectively dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend, but let me call attention to the passages in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. Gentleman clearly laid down that unless the Government thought that the Amendments which had been made were of such importance that they went to the very root of the matter, he would not consider them justified. Since there has been some confusion whether the quotations are from the bound or unbound volumes, I am going to quote now from the bound volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 14th November, 1945, where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) said:
"The Minister of Health may feel himself obliged, in the interests of public health, to make orders which are considered by some water undertakers to be detrimental to their interests, whether those undertakers be private companies or local authorities. The Minister of Health"—
and I commend these words to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—
"and any other Minister similarly situated under the Water Act or under the Town and Country Planning Act, must reserve the right to treat such an Order as a vote of confidence, if in his opinion the carrying out of national policy in that particular matter, whether it be water or other things, would be impeded by the exclusion from this particular order of any individual undertaker. That power to determine whether national policy is involved, or is likely to be imperilled or embarrassed, must rest with the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November. 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2183.]

1075
That we are ready to concede, but it is the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that this must be treated as a vote of confidence and that national policy is likely to be imperilled or embarrassed if somebody in the offices of the Catchment Board of the River Nene is allowed to determine when a particular million gallons of water should be impounded for the reservoir or allowed to continue on its flow down the Nene.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? We happen to take today a rather more serious view of the responsibility which rests upon my right hon. Friend for securing proper supplies of water to the countryside. That apparently, is not realised by hon. Members opposite.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Really, Sir, the suggestion that Mr. George Dallas does not, to use a classical phrase, care two hoots or a tinker's cuss for the inhabitants of the countryside so that he cannot be trusted in these matters is not the sort of suggestion which the Parliamentary Secretary should make.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Nor am I making it. I did not say that.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman was deliberately buttressing up his assertion that the River Nene—
Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not put words into my mouth which I did not use. He has done it before, and is doing it again.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Parliamentary Secretary shows his embarrassment from the consequences of his own words, and now seeks to do his best to minimise them. The hon. Gentleman has made a damaging and wounding charge against the catchment board and therefore against the chairman of the River Nene Catchment Board.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all. It is scandalous.
5.45 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: His damaging and wounding charge is that the River Nene Catchment Board is not fit to be trusted with responsibilities of this kind. His contention is that it must be dictated to by a Cabinet Committee, and that is
1076
the meaning of the Amendment. If he does not like it, let him leave in the words "Catchment Board," let him leave in the chairman of the catchment board, Mr. George Dallas, the ex-chairman of the T.U.C. Let us hear why he thinks that this board is not fit to be trusted with these responsibilities, which must be taken away from it and exercised by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, neither of whom have thought it worth while to come down here today to defend their proposal.
No, Sir, that cock will not fight. The Parliamentary Secretary has been given a task which he has failed to discharge—the task of defending the overturning of a decision of a Joint Committee of both Houses. He could only defend it, as his own Government have said, on the ground that, in some way or other, by leaving in the words "Catchment Board," national policy would be seriously imperilled or embarrassed. Unless he is willing to bring forward further arguments for that contention, then, certainly, the proposal brought forward today is one which, neither on procedure nor on merits, should be accepted, and I trust that the House will reject it.
Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken began by explaining, if I understood him rightly, that this question was not one of principle, and, indeed, I understood him to minimise its importance. Towards the end of his speech, he warmed to his work, and I was interested to see the Despatch Box actually thumped. I had read about it many times, but I had never seen it happen before.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman never watched the Minister of Health at any time?
Mr. Mitchison: The language, the vehemence and the somewhat violent character of the discourse to which we have just listened rather indicated, at the end of it, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had convinced himself that this was indeed a matter of importance and principle and one upon which it is proper that this House should deliberate, even though it has already been considered by a Joint Committee upstairs. If that is the final view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I entirely agree with him. I think the question we have

1077
to consider today is exceedingly important for two reasons. First, I yield to no one in my admiration of the work which, in its own sphere, the catchment board, including the chairman and other distinguished members, has done. Within its own sphere it has done excellent work, and no word was uttered by the Parliamentary Secretary to derogate from it in any way whatever. All that was invented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The point is that the catchment board was set up under the Land Drainage Act, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman well knows, and its duty is to attend to this watercourse, and it is particularly concerned with the interests of the agricultural community, who depend upon it for their water supplies. However excellent a public servant the chairman of the board has shown himself in the past to be and now is, it does not enlarge his functions as the chairman of a statutory board in any way by making suggestions as to what should be done to provide water for the local authorities and the constituents of those local authorities in the area, and what we have to consider in this Bill is, in the first and predominant place, how an adequate water supply is to be provided for these local government areas in mid-Northamptonshire, and to the ordinary men and women who live in them, and who badly need the water because it is an uncommonly dry part of the world. They never had a proper water supply even when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was Minister of Health, or previously. Steps are now being taken to secure one.
It seems to me that when, for these purposes, the question of whether water has to flow at the full rate or at a slightly reduced rate from the River Nene has to be considered, there are two things to be taken into account. The first and predominant point is that any real and urgent needs of the actual community in the area should be considered and met as far as possible. Those needs are very real and very urgent. There are many villages which have not a proper water supply, and which depend on things done under this order for such a supply. I believe that the town of Northampton has been without water in previous seasons, and I am perfectly certain that everyone concerned with the Nene Catchment Board would readily admit that the need for
1078
water is a very serious matter. On the other hand, just at the time when that need may become particularly urgent and particularly important, it may also be—and, in fact, will be—rather difficult to preserve the proper flow of the River Nene and to meet fully the demands of agriculture and other interests which depend on the direct flow of the River Nene.
That latter matter is the particular duty of the catchment board. All that this Amendment does, so far as it takes out the catchment hoard, is to ensure that a matter upon which there is necessarily bound to be some conflict, should not be decided by a body, however distinguished and successful it may be, whose statutory duties are all, if I may so put it, on one side of the fence. I have not the least doubt about the public spirit of the persons who compose the catchment board, and who include, of course, representatives of local authorities; but their duties as a catchment board are not to provide a water supply for the inhabitants of these towns and villages concerned in this order. The difficulty, as I see it, is how can they, when they have other duties, be asked to weigh the balance between their own responsibilities as a catchment board and the question of the supply of water to the local inhabitants?
My second point is this. I fully appreciate that the Committee upstairs may have had some difficulty in finding an effective substitute for the catchment board, however unsuited for the purpose they may or may not have thought the catchment board to be. It is now suggested that the substitute should be the two Ministers. I do not for one moment accept the suggestion that that involves anything like the Cabinet meeting or Cabinet committee of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that Cabinet Ministers' meetings do not form a Cabinet committee? That is the purpose, the object and the effect of bringing in two Cabinet Ministers.
Mr. Mitchison: I would not for a moment venture to dispute with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman what is the technical meaning of a Cabinet meeting. If he tells me that when one Minister

1079
speaks to another over the telephone, that is a Cabinet committee or a Cabinet meeting, I am sure he must be right.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that this is the procedure which is to be more effective than the careful inquiry by the Nene Catchment Board, he is really a most damaging advocate of his cause.
Mr. Mitchison: I am not standing here as an advocate, but as the representative of a lot of people who are uncommonly short of water, who want it, and who do not think that their interests would be safeguarded on this particular point by an authority which has other duties to perform. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. If there are to be long deliberations by the catchment board, there may be long deliberations by the two Ministers concerned.
I hope that right hon. and hon Members opposite will not, if I may use the phrase, look a concession too much in the mouth. I appreciate that it is very hard to find a body which will perform these functions easily. I do not for a moment think that the catchment board is the right body for the purpose. The difficulty is to find someone who is going to represent the various local authorities concerned. I cannot see how it can be anybody but the Minister of Health, as the water supply of this country is at present constituted.
When I look at what has been said for and against this proposal, it strikes me that nothing could more clearly illustrate the really urgent need of getting our water supplies constituted on a national basis and getting even a county basis relegated to the past. I believe it is only by some national scheme that this kind of point can ultimately be solved, and for the time being I think that no better solution can be found than to allow the Minister of Health to represent, as he necessarily does represent, the local authorities concerned, and the Minister of Agriculture to represent, as of course he does represent, agriculture and the catchment boards, which are primarily agricultural bodies and, therefore, come under his Ministry.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I do not propose to say much about this
1080
matter because, in my view, it is quite plainly one which ought not really to come before the House of Commons at all. If ever there was an example of the kind of matter, important though it may be locally in its way, which ought to go before the Joint Committee for discussion rather than be discussed on the Floor of this House, this is it. That is the first point that ought to be made about it. After all, it is not troubling anybody except the Minister. The promoters of the Bill are quite happy about it as it is; they are not concerned. I have here what the members of the board said about it. They had a meeting at which the following resolution was passed:
"That this meeting of the authority comprising the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board regards the postponing of the date of the operation of the order as a wanton disregard of the interests of the water consumers in the area and of the principles of democracy and expresses its strongest disapproval of your action"—
that is, the Minister—
"and the urgent wish that your decision should be reconsidered immediately with a view to the appointed day remaining 1st April, 1949."
In other words, what they are saying is, "For Heaven's sake get on with it." I think they are right. They are not bothered about all this.
Mr. Mitchison: That resolution was passed before the meeting referred to took place and in the belief that the delay in these particular proceedings would hold up the provision of water. The local authorities concerned now know, and have accepted the position, that there will be no consequent delay in the provision of water.
Mr. Thorneycroft: That may be so, but it is perfectly plain what the resolution means. It means that, in their view, the right course for the Minister to adopt is to get on with the business. I can see no earthly reason why the Minister should not have followed that very wise advice. But, whatever may be the merits of this point being discussed in the House of Commons, I should have thought it was abundantly plain that when we come to the end of the discussion, neither this House nor a Cabinet meeting, or anybody at that level, ought ever to be troubled with it again. After all, catchment boards all over this country have great experience of the flow of rivers. They are eminently suitable bodies who perform a

1081
very useful function. They are not actuated by wicked motives. They are not indifferent to the interests of other authorities round about them. They are deeply concerned to see that fairness is done within the limits of the raw material at their disposal.
6.0 p.m.
It is suggested that instead of an experienced body of that character making up its mind, by some means or other two Ministers should come to that decision. I hope someone will explain how on earth two Ministers will come to a decision to order the rate of extraction of water from a river. If this Amendment is accepted the Schedule will read:
"Provided that if at any time in the opinion of the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries it shall be necessary having regard to the state of the river…"
How does the Minister of Health, or the Minister of Agriculture, by telephone or otherwise, come to a decision about the state of the river? In a time of drought, by the time they had come to a decision about the state of the river it would be in full spate. Anybody with even a remote knowledge of what happens with rivers knows that perfectly well.
This is a pretty short and simple matter. The House ought never to have been bothered with it in the first place. This is an utterly inappropriate Amendment to be put forward at all. I am sure it is one of those things to which the Home Secretary was referring when he said that matters of detail were not for us, and that we ought not to be bothered with them. Therefore, this Amendment ought to be rejected on those grounds alone. Quite apart from that, it ought to be rejected on its merits, because I believe that anybody who knows anything about a river, no matter to what party he belongs—and this could not conceivably be a party matter—knows that two Ministers could never decide about a river, or at any rate it would take weeks before a decision was ever come to. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will use his influence and will withdraw the Amendment. I am sure that if he does so, his right hon. Friend will be grateful in the long run.
Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), to whom I always listen with pleasure, suffers from a great disadvantage this afternoon in that he has not heard the
1082
whole of the discussion. He said that this is a matter of detail, but he did not have the privilege of hearing his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) addressing the House at considerable length and saying that this is a major alteration in the terms of the order, that it is a gross violation of the pledge that the House would not be sledge-hammered and bulldozed into making such an alteration, and complaining that this procedure should be so misused. The hon. Member should know that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities has been having an afternoon out. None of us grudges him that at all, because we appreciate that when the Minister is present he speaks tremulously and hesitatingly, if he dares to speak at all. It is inevitable that we should have had some gymnastics from him this afternoon.
I must deplore that in his references to the Minister, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little ungenerous in saying that in the Minister's hands as he spoke, facts became malleable and adjustable things. There were references to utterances in the Minister's speech which neither I nor any of my hon. Friends heard in the speech which the Minister actually made. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who I know is a philosopher, will agree that one of the concepts of philosophy is that reason and will are twin corks bobbing on the waves of desire. In the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech the waves were more turbulent than usual and the desire was the desire to wound.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has put the point with a complete knowledge of the matter. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Monmouth does not know much about rivers. He really should, having represented Stafford, Leicester and Monmouth. He ought to have a special knowledge of rivers. There is no more difficulty in a person who observes the state of a river sending a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture than in sending a letter to the catchment board, and it takes exactly the same time.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it should be a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the Ministry of Health

1083
who should be employed to watch the flow of the Nene, in addition to a representative of the Nene Catchment Board?
Mr. Hale: I am not suggesting that anyone should be specially employed on that duty. I am suggesting that the catchment board get their reports in the ordinary course, and the reports can be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture in precisely the same way. As the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has mentioned this matter, may I say that my somewhat remote interest in it arises from the fact that until two or three years ago I had for 24 years been a member of the county council dealing with the county adjoining, and we had great difficulty with this water scheme for years because of the inactivity of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities in particular.
The matter is perfectly simple. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth that this is purely a matter of detail. The case as put by the Minister is perfectly simple. If we are to have an arbitrator on any matter he might as well be independent. Here we have two bodies, one of which is concerned with a special section of the duties, and, therefore, while perfectly competent to decide, would be in an embarrassing position if it had to make a decision. It might have to decide upon a matter in which apparently it had an interest, and therefore it would be desirable that there should be reference to the Minister. It would be quite easy to make such a reference, and there is no reason whatever for this long Debate on this very small proposal, except the desire of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which we all forgive him, to have an afternoon out because the Minister is away.
Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) seemed to imply that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) had had an afternoon out.
Mr. Hale: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. I neither hinted, suggested nor implied anything of the sort with regard to the hon. Member for Monmouth. I said that he had not had the advantage of hearing the earlier speeches.
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Well, I had.
Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman is so often here that I had not observed him sitting in his place.
Major Legge-Bourke: I withdraw the suggestion then, but I certainly heard the hon. Member say that somebody had had an afternoon out. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been a little reluctant to call attention to the absence of the Minister of Health from this Debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and other hon. Members who spoke from the other side of the House have forgotten one very important factor. I myself drew the attention of the House to this matter when we were discussing the River Boards Bill. There was a divided responsibility set up; the responsibility of river boards was to be to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and in certain cases the Minister of Transport. This afternoon we are dealing with what I imagine will he perpetuated when the river board takes over from the catchment board; I imagine there is no quibble about the matter. We are dealing with a situation where a river board, or catchment board as it is at present, has to take orders from two different Ministers. There is one lesson which I have learned in the short-lived connection I have had with rivers, and that is that unless one authority is responsible, confusion inevitably results.
The pathetic thing about this Amendment is that it is at a time when there is likely to be a crisis of some sort or another on the rivers that we are taking away the direct control of the catchment board or the river board and transferring it to two Ministries in Whitehall. Apart from the fact that it is a divided responsibility which is created, it is at the same time a remote responsibility. There are two things connected with a river which are of vital importance; the first is to have a local man on the job who knows what he is talking about and knows the needs to the moment and almost to the second; and secondly, he must be given undivided responsibility.
This Amendment can only achieve confusion and a remote form of control, if it is a control at all, which will act to

1085
the detriment not only of the Mid-Northampton area, which is so directly concerned with this Bill, but also of areas further down the river. It is for that reason that I am intervening in this Debate, because the Nene runs through the northern half of my constituency and I am particularly anxious that there should be proper safeguards for the water supply for certain areas in my constituency. It seems to me that if we have to wait for the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health to get together on the telephone, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), or for two of their henchmen to get together, we may have to wait far too long and there may be a shortage of water in Mid-Northampton, in the Isle of Ely or in other areas, a shortage which could have been avoided if only responsibility had been left with the people who ought to have it.
I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kettering pay a small tribute in passing to the Nene Catchment Board because I think the impression which must have been given, had that tribute not been paid, was that the catchment board is rather an unreliable body which is out for itself. I very heartily deny that and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary denies it, too. The catchment board has been singularly public-spirited, and the river is one of those rivers on which the people living in the highlands have taken an interest in the people living in the lowlands. That cannot be said of all rivers; I only wish it could. Tribute has been paid by past Ministers of Agriculture to the Nene Catchment Board and I hope it will not be thought, as a result of this Debate, that the Catchment Board is not a fit body to be given this responsibility.
What the Parliamentary Secretary has not yet explained is why, when the original order was brought forward in December, 1947, the Ministry were not worried about all interested parties having a proper right of representation and their interests being properly considered. It was proposed that very great power should be given to the water board without this great demand for all sides being heard before any decision was taken. Yet the Minister now comes along and says that because the catchment board is an interested party, it should not have the final right to decide.
1086
May I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to another point which appears in the River Boards Act? Under Section 9 of that Act it is the duty of
"every river board, in exercising the functions conferred on or transferred to them by or under this Act, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their area."
If that duty is laid upon river boards—and I take it we are not quibbling as to whether the board has yet been established and whether it is still a catchment board—surely the Minister of Agriculture, who promoted this Bill, and the Minister of Health, who supported him, at that time thought that a river board was a lit body to be given responsibility for conserving its water resources. Later in the same Section, subsection (8) states:
"A river board may give directions requiring any person who in their opinion is abstracting water from any river, stream or inland water in the river board area in quantities which are substantial in relation to the flow or volume of the river, stream or inland water…to give such information as to the abstraction or discharge, at such times and in such form, as may be specified in the directions;"
There is a proviso which stated that anybody who objected to those directions could appeal to the Minister of Health. In fact, machinery was set up under that Act whereby not merely was the responsibility left in the hands of the river boards, but also machinery for complaint was created. I cannot understand why it should now be necessary to introduce this Amendment, which will completely emasculate that Section and means that the Minister of Health will have to decide, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, in Whitehall, whether or not the same amount of water should be abstracted from the river by the water board.
6.15 p.m.
It appears to me that the Ministry of Health have completely overlooked the River Boards Act and that they have ignored the provisions of it. They have apparently taken a step which can only detract from the esteem in which the river board will be held and in which the catchment board is now held, and which will give an impression in the public mind that the board is not a fit body to be trusted in this matter. I think that is very poor reward for the service which the board has rendered not only

1087
to the Mid-Northamptonshire area, but to the whole of the catchment area of the River Nene. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will seriously reconsider this matter, and will take this Amendment away and think about it again, because the River Boards Act was agreed by all parties; we thought it was a good Act and we intended to make it work, but it will not work if we take away from the men on the spot, in other words, the river board, responsibility which they ought to have.
Mr. Attewell: I address the House only because my constituency is affected in a small measure by this Bill and because I was born in Northampton and lived there until I came to London. I hope I shall be able to answer the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), who wants to know how one can tell the level of the River Nene. There is, on certain occasions, a fair amount of odour floating around—
Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: Does the hon. Member really suggest that the Minister of Health should sit on the bank of the River Nene sniffing?
Mr. Attewell: I certainly do not, but the hon. Member asked how one tells the level, and, as I happen to know, I thought I would tell him. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made a rather intriguing statement. I heard him saying what a wonderful fellow, as chairman, George Dallas is. I agree, but I feel that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not draw attention to the fact that he was also a fellow-countryman, and I fancy that here we have the invaders coming into a subjected country and wishing to place one of their members as a dictator on the board. I have no objection to the Scots coming down here, but I object to their being in charge of this catchment board and using their power in the interest of that board when that interest conflicts with the interests of the large town of Northampton.
In that town we have a population of nearly 100,000. The year 1944 was not the first time when a shortage of water caused great concern to the inhabitants. I was spending my holidays in the area in 1944 when the shortage occurred, and my people are down there now. My
1088
people live at Abington Park. What happened? We went from the estates to the lake in Abington Park with all kinds of buckets and receptacles, although it was very low; we had the fire brigades filling up the emergency static water tanks in the neighbourhood.
My mind goes back to certain of the political and local history of Northampton town council when we were still fighting for water supplies. When we get the reservoir going, we shall be able to supply the people and the manufacturers with the water they require. One can imagine that there could be a conflict between a town like Northampton, with its desire to supply the public with water, and the Nene Catchment Board. I remember that in the Committee certain statements were made that were not to the credit of the catchment board. It was said that the catchment board would pay a great deal of attention to one particular matter, especially drainage, but would not take into consideration other matters. It seems to me that we cannot leave to a body like a catchment board the final decision in a dispute about supplies of water.
I think Parliament itself must always be supreme in matters of this sort. I cannot think what might happen if some body, set up to deal with one of the most vital necessities in the life of the people, were not to be within the control of Parliament. I ask hon. Members to visualise what might happen if there were a conflict between the Borough of Northampton, with its 100,000 population, and the catchment board. After all, the catchment board is made up of various interests. The supply of water is really a matter of life and death, and we are more especially aware of the fact since the experiences of 1944. I think it is right and proper that the Minister should decide any dispute between two such bodies as a local authority and a catchment board. I can well understand why the Minister of Agriculture is brought in. There are various conflicts between the various people interested, and I imagine that there could be a conflict on the question of how much water should be drawn from the Nene. When such a conflict occurs, it is right and proper that it should be sent for settlement to the head of affairs, to the Minister himself, so that Parliament can be the supreme arbitrator in a matter which is one of life and death.
Captain Marsden: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell). I always like to hear the local man talking about local affairs. I like also to see the local man back the local lad. The hon. Member is apparently against that principle. He thinks all decisions affecting Northamptonshire's water supply should not be taken in the county by the man on the spot, but should be taken by the Minister of- Health in London—if anyone can find him, which is more than we can do today.
Mr. Attewell: I said there might arise a conflict between a local authority, such as Northampton, which is the main one there, and a catchment board, and that it should be sent to the Minister for settlement. If the two authorities were in agreement there would be no need to send the matter to the Minister.
Captain Marsden: The position is not quite like that. The decision, according to the Bill, must be taken by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is much better to let the decision be taken by the Catchment Board. They are the people who know the river and understand it, and have knowledge of the supply of water in the river. The Parliamentary Secretary justified the introduction of the Amendment by saying it was of such vital importance that that alone justified the Minister's bringing the matter to the House in this Bill. He said it was a matter of deep principle. Questions of how water should be taken from a river to a reservoir, or at what time the flow of water should be increased or decreased, are not matters of deep principle.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? He will agree, I think, that it is a matter of principle that, where there are two interested parties, both carrying on essential and proper duties in their own spheres, the final decision, when there should happen to be a difference between them, should be settled by reference to another body outside?
Captain Marsden: We are bound to have, to a certain extent, conflicting opinions, when there is a reservoir wanting water and a river that can provide the water. However, I am sure that the people concerned, the local men, are better
1090
able to resolve such conflicts of opinion to the best advantage than somebody living up in London. There is a matter of principle involved certainly—a matter of deep principle, with the Minister of Health, and that is the principle of totalitarian methods in his Department. The Minister believes in that—just so long, of course, as he is the dictator. We on this side of the House disagree with that view. I think I can speak for this side. We believe that the strength of a vast organisation lies in its decentralisation.
There is another principle involved, a principle at the top of all this business, and that is that water should be provided for everybody in the country. In this instance the provision is for water for everybody in mid-Northamptonshire. We would all agree with that. But suppose, for instance, that water is nationalised. I am not at the moment expressing any opinion on that question, or saying whether I would support such nationalisation or oppose it. If it were nationalised throughout England and Wales—I dare not mention Scotland, because somebody would object—then all these questions about the pumping of water from a river to a reservoir would be sent to Whitehall to be decided, according to the views of the Government as expressed in this Bill. I am against that sort of thing. That is what we are asked to do on this occasion —to approve the sending to London for decision questions which ought to be settled locally.
In the Committee we had the advantage of meeting the people responsible for these affairs—not merely reading about them or hearing about them, and so forming vague ideas: we actually saw the people. I draw the attention of the House to this, that we were told that a decision could be made very quickly about the supply of water. The Amendment says that the decision to decrease the flow, if there is lack of water in the river, must be taken by the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with the Minister of Health. That is all right.
However, let us take it the other way up. Suppose it is time to increase the flow. Then the men on the spot could say almost immediately, "The water is coming down. Switch on the pumps. Fill the reservoir." But no, under this Amendment they must once again go to the Minister of Health and the Minister

1091
of Agriculture, and refer the matter to them. We had expert evidence on this very case. The people on the spot can know two hours ahead, when the floods are coming down, what the flow will be, and can give the word for switching on the pumps and filling up the reservoir. They can justify the taking of such action by the knowledge that in an hour's time there will be another six inches or a foot of water in the river. That is what the catchment board can do.
However, this Amendment says that the catchment board must refer the matter to Whitehall. Someone talked of sending in returns. I can imagine Whitehall telephoning or sending a telegram saying "We are not so sure about that; fill in the form," or, if the form has been filled in, saying that it is not in order. All this sort of thing is a further drag on progress throughout the country. This question was looked at most carefully by experts both for and against, and the decision of the Committee, although it was not unanimous, was that, taking everything into account, it would be far better for the people who live in mid-Northamptonshire, and who enjoy that water and rely on it, to know that the decision when to ease down the pumping in the river and when to increase the pumping again, could be taken on the spot by the catchment board.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Paget: It is a pretty serious matter for the people of Northampton to have the water supply cut off. If someone is going to cut off the water supply, we should like to have that someone responsible to Parliament, where we can question him. We do not want the water supply of Northampton cut off by somebody whose interest, we have been told, primarily concerns agriculture, and, indeed, agriculture in the Isle of Ely. It is not unreasonable that a great town like Northampton should have this sort of decision taken by a Minister.
Major Legge-Bourke: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the catchment boards and river boards in the future are to be under the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible to Parliament?
Mr. Paget: No. The Minister of Agriculture is not answerable in this House
1092
and cannot be questioned on a decision taken by a catchment board; and the Table would not take a Question on it. With regard to the point about switching on the water, the catchment board have the authority to reduce the supply below 20 million gallons, but that does not compel them to reduce it, and I should not myself have thought that, if a flood were coming through and the catchment board then wanted to increase the supply, there was anything to stop them doing so.
Sir John Barlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman laid great emphasis on the necessity of having someone responsible to Parliament if the water of Northampton were cut off. What would he do if the water of Northampton were cut off today, and no responsible Minister were present in the House?
Mr. Paget: I would go to the highly-competent Parliamentary Secretary who would undoubtedly give me the utmost satisfaction.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a fairly full discussion of this Amendment, and I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if we shortly come to a decision upon it. I should like to make a few observations. I should like to make it clear, first, that although I was present in a professional capacity at the two local inquiries that were held, I was in no way concerned in that professional capacity with the particular point under consideration at the present time. Therefore, I do not think that I am in any way either embarrassed in or debarred from expressing some views with regard to it.
This matter has indeed a long history. I do not propose to go over the whole of it, but I think there is force in the suggestion that its history has been prolonged by the action of the Minister of Health. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in seeking to justify this Amendment, said that we do not want the water supply cut off by someone who is not responsible to Parliament. I am wondering whom he meant by the word "we," because there is no substance in that point. In the first place, the supply taken out of the River Nene will be pumped to the reservoir at Pits-ford, where it will be stored for months. In the second place, the promoters of the water board, who include in their number the borough of Northampton, do not

1093
mind in the very least if this Amendment is not made, nor do any other of the local authorities who are constituent members of the Board. That is a very important fact.
It is a fact—and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me—that the people who are going to be held primarily responsible if the water is cut off from the people of Northampton, or from any other area within the board's area of supply, will be the water board. If they are quite content, as they are, to accept the position that the catchment board should have the right to reduce their daily take by a maximum of four million gallons a day, there really cannot be any reality at all in the suggestion that the chances of conflict between the Nene Catchment Board and the water board are so great that this matter has to be brought before the House of Commons, so that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture can be appointed to arbitrate upon that question. It is a very narrow but, I agree, not unimportant point. No one, however, can say that it goes to the root of this scheme—a scheme involving a great many people, a big area of the country and possibly five million or six million pounds. The water board will function, in my belief, just as well without this Amendment, and I think better than if the Amendment is made. After all while it is true that the interests of the catchment board and the interests of the water board may to a small extent differ, is there any truth in the suggestion that in their daily work they will not have regard to the duties which attach to each board?
The River Nene is an odd river in this respect, that very often in the Spring there is very little flow down the river. The only period during which the right of abstraction of 20 million gallons a day can take place is between 30th September and 1st May, so the only period during which that peak can be reduced by a maximum of four million gallons is that short period of the year. That, of course, would only be done, if this Bill is not amended, where it was vitally necessary in the interests of the river and the interests of the performance of the catchment board's duties. The catchment board will be succeeded by the river board with wider duties. Bearing in mind that a reduction from say 20 million gallons in one day to 16 million
1094
gallons in one day will take place in that period of the year whereas the supply from the reservoir to the water consumers of Northampton Borough and elsewhere is intended to take place in the summer months, it is complete nonsense to suggest that that reduction on one day, or it may be two, at that time would have the effect of causing the water supply to be cut off to the consumers in Northampton.
Mr. Attewell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point. The water that is abstracted from September to May goes into the reservoir as a reserve. Although they take it for nine months when the water is in easy flow, the town has also the reserve from September to May.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman interrupted a little too soon. He is quite right. I am glad to have carried him with me so far. The drought period from the river angle when the reduction from 20 million to 16 million at the most can be made, can only be between the 30th September and the 1st May. The catchment board are concerned with the flow down the river, but it is not just for the river but for the inhabitants of Peterborough and towns down below; it is also important for health purposes to keep a good flow.
In 1944 the drought in Northampton took place in July, I think it was. I should have thought that if, because of the state of the river, there was this cut in the take before 1st May, almost certainly that amount could be made up later on. I should also have thought that the chances of having to make use of this cut were likely to be small; but it is very important from the point of view of the river that there should be this power. This Amendment does not take away the power of reducing the take from 20 million to 16 million gallons, but it does transfer the power of deciding whether that take should be reduced to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. It is on that narrow point that the greater part of the time of this House has been taken today; it is on that narrow point that, in face of the decision of the Joint Committee this Bill has been brought to this House by the Minister of Health, who in seeking to make this Amendment is not supported by any one of those who put forward the proposals for this water board. He is

1095
doing it on his own initiative. Let there be no mistake about that.
What will the effect be? If the Bill remains as it is I have no doubt that when the flow of the river was getting seriously low the engineer of the Nene Catchment Board would ring up the engineer of the water board—they know each other—and say, "Look here, I am in a bad way. How will it be if we cut the flow down to 17 million or 18 million gallons? How will that affect you?" And they would soon arrive at a solution. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that that is very speculative in view of the friction which has been engendered over these local inquiries, but the answer to that is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In 1944, without any of these powers, in a time of water shortage, was the Nene Catchment Board holding on to its rights and letting the people of Northampton suffer in consequence? Not a bit of it. The Nene Catchment Board came forward voluntarily to do what they could to help solve the problem of water supplies for Northampton borough and the neighbouring areas which were short at that time. The effect of this Amendment, if
carried, is bound to be delay in securing the decision, either to reduce the take or to increase the take again from the amount to which it has been reduced.
I see no ground whatever for the view that it is necessary to make this change. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that this is not the sort of point with which this House should be troubled. It is important, but it does not go to the root of the matter, and is therefore clearly a breach of the pledge given by the Lord Privy Seal, to which we referred before. It is a change which will cause delay; it is unnecessary; it leads to centralisation of powers in the hands of Ministers; and in my opinion it would be much better if, even now, the Parliamentary Secretary would say that, in view of the opinion of the promoters as well as of the Nene Catchment Board, he would not go on with this time-wasting procedure, particularly having regard to the way in which we spent the last two days. being guillotined.
Question put, "That the words 'Catchment Board' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 200.

Division No. 130.]

AYES

[6.45 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P G.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Price-White, Lt.-Col D.

Amory, 13 Heathcoat

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Raikes, H. V.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

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

Ramsay, Maj. S

Astor, Hon. M.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hope, Lord J.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Barlow, Sir J.

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

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Beechman, N. A.

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

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Bennett, Sir P.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Scott, Lord W.

Bossom, A. C.

Jennings, R.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Bowen, R.

Keeling, E. H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Smiles, Lt.-Gel. Sir W.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Smithers, Sir W.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Snadden, W. M.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Linstead, H. N.

Spearman, A. C. M

Butcher, H W.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Spence, H. R.

Challen, C.

Low, A. R. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Clifton-Brewn, Lt.-Col. G.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Sutcliffe, H.

Crowder, Capt. John E

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drewe, C.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marples, A. E.

Touche, G. C.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Marsden, Capt. A

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Mellor, Sir J.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

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

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gage, C.

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. O. (Pollok)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Nicholson, G.

York. C.

Gridley, Sir A.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

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

Grimston, R. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Pickthorn, K.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Mr. Studholme and

Mr. Wingfield Digby.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Pritt, D. N.

Albu, A. H.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Randall, H. E.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Hobson, C. R.

Ranger, J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Holman, P.

Rankin, J.

Attewell, H. C.

Horabin, T. L.

Reeves, J.

Awbery, S. S.

Houghton, A. L N. D.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Hoy, J.

Rhodes, H.

Bacon, Miss A.

Hubbard, T.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Barton, C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Battley, J. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Benson, G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Bing, G. H. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Royle, C.

Blenkinsop, A

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

Scollan, T.

Blyton, W. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Boardman, H.

Jager, G. (Winchester)

Sharp, Granville

Bowden, Flg. Offr H. W.

John, W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Johnston, Douglas

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Jones, Jack (Bolton)

Simmons, C. J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Kenyon, C.

Skeffington, A. M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Burke, W. A.

King, E. M.

Skinnard, F. W.

Carmichael, James

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Cluse, W. S.

Kinley, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Cobb, F A.

Kirby, B, V.

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

Cellindridge, F.

Kirkwood. Rt. Hon. D.

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

Collins, V. J.

Lang, G.

Snow, J. W.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Lavers, S.

Sorensen, R. W

Cooper, G.

Leslie, J. R.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Stokes, R. R.

Cove, W. G.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Stross, Dr. B.

Daggar, G.

Logan, D. G.

Swingler, S.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lyne, A. W.

Sylvester, G. O.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McAdam, W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

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

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Delargy, H. J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Diamond, J.

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Dobbie, W.

McKinlay, A. S.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Dodds, N. N.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thurtle, Ernest

Donovan, T.

McLeavy, F.

Tolley, L.

Driberg, T. E. N.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Viant, S. P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Walkden, E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Walker, G. H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Watkins, T. E.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Ewart, R.

Messer, F.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Fairhurst, F.

Middleton, Mrs.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Farthing, W. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Monslow, W.

Wigg, George

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

Morley, R.

Wilkes, L.

Follick, M.

Mort, D. L.

Wilkins, W. A.

Foot, M. M.

Moyle, A.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Ganley, Mrs. C S.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Gilzean, A.

Oldfield, W H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Glanville, J. E. (Censett)

Oliver, G. H.

Willis, E.

Goodrich, H. E.

Paget, R. T.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Yates, V. F.

Grey, C. F.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grierson, E.

Pargiter, G. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Parkin, B. T.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Pearson, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hale, Leslie

Peart, T. F.

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Popplewell E.

Mr. Hannan.

Hardy, E. A.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35. to leave out "Catchment Board," and to insert "said Ministers."
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As we wish to make progress we do not propose to offer any objections to this Amendment. but
1098
as the Minister is now in the House, I think it would be courteous if, after the discussion on the Bolton Corporation Bill, we had the advantage of his presence.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 40, leave out "Catchment Board," and insert, "said Ministers."—[Mr. Blenkinsop]
Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 12, line 1, to leave out "that day," and to insert:
"the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."
This Amendment and the following four Amendments are necessitated by the postponement of the appointed day.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Although we have had some considerable discussion on the appointed day, I think that we might have some further explanation. There are certain accounting points which will arise, and I am wondering whether they have been taken into account, and whether any further delay may occur that will necessitate another change in the appointed day.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I had hoped that we should be able to make rather faster progress. These Amendments are necessitated, in the first place, by the postponement of the appointed day, and also to ensure that, as far as possible, the constituent bodies shall operate as though 1st April had been the appointed day. Under these Amendments, the stores referred to will pass to the board on the new appointed day, 1st June. The Amendments are intended to have the effect that the cash settlement between the board and the respective authorities shall be on the basis of the stores held on 1st April. The stores then held have already been assessed, and this will obviously avoid the necessity of having any additional assessment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does this Amendment make any difference to the procedure in respect of the charges which are to operate up to 1954? Is that now to date from June, or is it to be antedated to April, even though the order does not come into effect until June?
Mr. Blenkinsop: It has been agreed among the authorities that once the board is set up there shall be accounting between the board and the constituent authorities on the basis that the board shall have the benefit of the water revenue and will bear the expenditure of the constituent authorities between 1st April and 1st June.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Which is the Amendment that gives effect to the agreement we have been told has been arrived at?
Mr. Blenkinsop: All these Amendments are to that end. As I explained earlier, we are desirous of ensuring that there shall be no delay because of the Parliamentary procedure, and these Amendments carry out that intention.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 2, leave out "and which are by this order transferred to the Board," and insert:
"for the purposes of their existing undertaking."
In line 37, leave out "shall be entitled to and."
In line 42, leave out "shall be entitled to and."
In line 51, leave out "subsequent to the appointed day," and insert:
"beginning on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out "Before the commencement of any," and to insert:
"As soon as may be after the appointed day the Board shall make or cause to be made estimates of their probable revenue and expenditure (other than capital expenditure) in respect of the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty.
(2) Before the commencement of any subsequent."
This and the subsequent Amendments are to ensure that there shall be no unnecessary delay in the operation of the order. As they are consequential, I hope that there will be no need for further discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 14, leave out "and if the estimates," and insert:
"(2) If the estimates made under either of the last two foregoing subsections."
In line 17, leave out from "year," to "ending," in line 18, and insert:
"up to and including that."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
Mr. J. H. Hare: I beg to move, in page 15, line 26, to leave out sub-paragraph (b).
The effect of this Amendment is to withdraw from this Bill sub-paragraph (b) which will entitle the board to levy, for deficiencies in its, operations, a rate from the component authorities within the area

1101
of the board. This brings in an entirely new principle of charging for water, a principle which most of us on this side and, I believe, Members opposite will definitely wish—
It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7, further proceeding stood postponed.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL
Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Shackleton: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered." and to add:
"recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 2; the proposed new Clause (Power to provide residential hotel); and the Amendment to the Preamble standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Lewis."
This Amendment proposes the recommittal of this Bill to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments standing on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and other of my hon. Friends. The question of how far we can raise certain matters on Report when examining Private Bill legislation is very important. It is our contention that in the matter which will be discussed as, we hope, in Committee of the whole House, certain action was taken in Bolton which, while it complied with the technical provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, which regulates the ways in which local authorities should consult the public before introducing legislation, contravened the spirit of that Act.
It is obviously impossible to discuss the merits of the Amendments on the Order Paper on the recommittal proposal which I have just moved, but I think I should be in Order in referring to them briefly, so that the House may know what the complaint is and what lies behind our attempt to make out a prima facie case for recommittal. Those Amendments propose to reinsert a Clause in the Bill to give power
1102
to the Bolton Corporation to provide a residential hotel in the borough. It is our contention that objectionable procedure was followed in the removal of this Clause from the Bill, and that it came about in a secretive way following on some understanding—not fully explained to the public—with the brewing interests. Further, this action was taken not in open council but in the general purposes committee of the Corporation. I do not question in any way the right of the general purposes committee to act for the Corporation under special procedure, but we feel that it was very unfortunate that a matter of such importance should have been decided virtually in private, and that there was no discussion in open council so that the public could judge the issue.
At a town meeting which followed the meeting of the General Purposes Committee, again, no discussion was permitted on the Clause even though it was still in the Bill as advertised. Attempts to raise the question at the town meeting were ruled out of order. This business has aroused considerable comment in Bolton. Many people there feel that there should have been an opportunity for open discussion of a matter of such importance, a matter which had previously been agreed to by the Corporation and thought worthy of insertion in the Bill. No opportunity has been given to the people of Bolton to express their views on this Clause. If the question had been put to the town meeting a discussion could have taken place and a poll could have been held. I will refer to a comment in the local Press. I do not know the political views of the "Bolton Guardian"—I believe it to be an independent or Liberal newspaper—but a writer in that newspaper without committing himself in any way whether the Clause was desirable did, none the less, make it clear that he, like many others, felt that the question was dealt with in an objectionable way. The writer said:
"Those who, like myself, attended the meeting found that the Bill was not presented to them for their approval in the form in which it had been advertised. However truly this may he in accord with the letter of the law one must feel that it is not altogether in keeping with the spirit of democratic government."
I further comment on the view which has been put forward by those who are opposing recommital. It has been suggested that following the town meeting

1103
the Corporation subsequently uanimously approved the Bill. But they had no opportunity to discuss this Clause. They were told that unless the Bill was unanimously approved the whole of it would be lost. On the strength of that advice they decided to vote for the Bill, rather than lose it because of its many valuable provisions.
My hon. Friends and I take the view that the action which was taken in Bolton was a violation of the spirit of the Ninth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. We feel that it is the duty of this House to consider this matter; indeed, Erskine May lays it down that a Private Bill should be treated by the House in all respects as if it were a Public Bill. We feel that the best way in which this question can be ventilated is to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. We have taken the best advice available to us and, for reasons which. I understand, are connected with the possibility of financial charges arising out of the Bill, we suggest that this matter should be dealt with in Committee. We cast no slur on the Private Bills Committee, which approved the Bill in its present form. They had no opportunity of considering the Clause and, therefore, no option but to deal with the Bill as it stands. There is a precedent for our suggestion that the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in the action taken in the case of the Sheffield Corporation Bill, in 1900. The procedure we are suggesting may be exceptional, but this is an exceptional case and it is our duty, in this House, to ensure that the spirit as well as the law of democratic procedure should be observed. Once the Bill has been recommitted we shall have an opportunity to discuss the actual matter with which the Amendments deal without the restrictions which are now imposed upon us.
Mr. Delargy: I beg to second the Amendment.
As I am not a lawyer I cannot express any opinion whatever about the strict legality of these proceedings, but I have some personal knowledge of local government. For nine years I had the honour to serve on the Manchester City Council where I was on several committees, including the General Purposes
1104
Committee for all that time. In the light of that experience, therefore, I believe that the procedure adopted by the Bolton Corporation has been rather bewildering and has about it some suspicion, at least, of irregularity. Never in my experience have I seen anything quite like it. I have gone to some considerable trouble to discover by what procedure the final decision to exclude the Clause from the Bill was reached. It would be out of Order if I detailed my findings to the House, or made any detailed criticism of that procedure, but, as a former city councillor, I am convinced that an overwhelming prima facie case has been made out for reconsidering this whole matter.
I am not satisfied that the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, have been fulfilled in this case. In the interests of the Corporation, and more especially so that the House can adequately fulfil its own responsibility. I urge that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House for the purposes stated in the Motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I should be grateful if I might be permitted to intervene for a few moments at this stage. I do so not to express any opinion whatever on the merits of the Clause that it is proposed to recommit, but because the holder of my office has for some 100 years past been entrusted with the responsibility for the supervision of private Bills, and there are certain public considerations which I think it my duty to bring to the attention of the House. As the House will appreciate, if this were a question of inserting in a general public health or local government Bill some extension of power for local authorities, I should not be concerned, but the House is here dealing with a Private Bill brought forward, by particular promoters on the promoters' petition.
In this case the promoters are the Bolton Corporation, and as originally introduced this Private Bill included a Clause authorising the Corporation to provide a residential hotel. Various local chambers of commerce and associations objected to the proposal and had, of course, the constitutional right to petition this House against the Clause and to be heard by counsel before the Committee on the Bill. Before doing so they took the usual and prudent course of approaching the promoters, a course

1105
which very often saves a great deal of time and public money. They made their representations and it appears that the promoters thereupon agreed to withdraw the Clause in committee. Relying upon this understanding, the various associations did not exercise their undoubted right to petition against the Bill. The Corporation kept their bargain and duly withdrew the Clause.
The course proposed by the present Motion is designed for the purpose of reinserting that Clause in the Bill. I am not, of course, in any way suggesting that the Motion on the Paper is out of Order, but I should inform the House that there would not appear to be any precedent for Amendments proposed by an hon. Member of this House which would force powers upon an unwilling promoter in breach of an understanding given in good faith. The House has always attached importance to the processes of negotiation and compromise by which the earlier, and sometimes, indeed, the later, stages of Private Bill legislation are carried forward, and the time of the House and the pockets of the ratepayers are frequently relieved in consequence.
As I have said, I am not concerned with the merits of this particular proposal, but I would invite the sponsors of this Amendment and the House to take into consideration the very serious effect which might ensue in this type of legislative procedure, where promoters withdraw Clauses of Bills and objectors waive their rights to come before this House, if promoters were thereafter compelled to insert a Clause which they had previously agreed to withdraw.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am sure the House will be indebted to the Chairman of Ways and Means for the most lucid exposition which he has just given of the matter which comes before the House this evening. He has, of course, surveyed the matter not only with lucidity and authority, but in an objective and detached manner, as becomes the high office which he holds. Having listened to him the House will feel no surprise when I say that I rise to oppose the Amendment which has been proposed. It is abundantly clear, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has said. that the Mover of this Amendment is trying to persuade the House to do a most unusual thing. He is seeking to recommit
1106
the Clause of a Private Bill to a Committee of the whole House in order to incorporate a Clause against the will of the promoters of the Bill.
As the House knows, the purpose of a Private Bill is to give powers to the promoters, and the duty of Parliament is to see that the powers given are necessary and proper powers and that they are not excessive or oppressive. It is for that reason that the procedure of the House gives machinery for the detailed consideration of these matters in a Committee of the House upstairs. It is not a question of such consideration which the House is asked to take into account this evening. What is sought to be done is to put into this Bill a Clause against the will of the promoters, and without the benefits of the detailed consideration which such a Clause would have in Committee upstairs.
In my submission there is no difference in principle between saying that the promoters must have a power that they do not want and saying that they must not have a power that they do want. Either course is clearly against the promoters of the Bill and the corporation of the borough of Bolton. The House should not have much difficulty in making up its mind on the issue—between the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) and the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) who have spoken, and the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) who I understand will speak, on the one hand, and the corporation of the borough of Bolton, on the other.
The House will appreciate that in considering a Private Bill it is right to have regard to the wishes of the promoters of the Bill. What has been said against them? The hon. Member for Preston said as far as he knew there was anxiety in Bolton for this Clause to be inserted. What the evidence of that is I do not know, because he was not good enough to inform the House. The other point he made was the remarkable suggestion that there had been a breach of the spirit of the Ninth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. The hon. Member for Platting, who seconded, said that he was not a lawyer, but I would ask him to consider what is the meaning of this extraordinary phrase, "a breach of the spirit of the Ninth Schedule of the Local Government Act." The provisions of the Ninth Schedule are crystal clear to lawyer

1107
and to layman, and to suggest that there has been a breach of the spirit of them without being able to indicate any breach in the provisions laid down therein, is, in my submission, a fantastic and irresponsible suggestion to make to this House about a great Corporation. If either of the hon. Members cares to substantiate what that breach was by reference to the Schedule, I will give way while he does so. I suggest to the House that this loose and irresponsible suggestion of a breach of the spirit of what is a perfectly clear Schedule only means that the machinery is not working out in the way in which the hon. Members, including the junior Member for Bolton, wished it to work out. Therefore, they say there has been a breach of the spirit of the Ninth Schedule.
That is the case, as I understand it, which is made by those who wish to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, against the will of the promoters. I do not think that this is the place to canvass, nor is this the Motion on which to canvass, the local merits of this issue. Those local merits are not a matter for the House of Commons but for the citizens of Bolton and for their democratically elected representatives. It is not for this House to try to come to a decision in Committee of the whole House on a matter which obviously requires local knowledge such as this House would not be able to have. I suggest that any recommittal would have very grave effects, not only in regard to the position of the Bill and of the borough of Bolton, which are important matters, but in regard to the general constitutional procedure for dealing with Bills of this kind, which is a still more important matter.
I believe, and there has certainly been no evidence to the contrary, that the procedure laid down by the Local Government Act has been followed to the letter in this matter. I see that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) shakes his head. I do not want to anticipate his speech. I was rather hoping that I should have the opportunity to follow him. I think he will agree that there has been no evidence so far put before this House of any departure from the procedure laid down by the Local Government Act. I believe that the town's meeting held under the provisions of
1108
the Ninth Schedule was held after the general purposes committee, a committee of the whole council, had agreed that the Clause should be withdrawn. It was in that position that the matter was put to the citizens of Bolton. It was that Bill, that is to say, the Bill without Clause 87 which hon. Members now wish to reinsert, to which the townspeople of Bolton gave their approval at the town's meeting. It was to the Bill without that Clause that the Council of Bolton gave their unanimous approval. That is not a party issue—
Mr. Delargy: I think the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) will agree, nevertheless, that the council itself expressed no opinion, or was not given even an opportunity to express an opinion, as to what its general purposes committee had done. In other words, the council could not discuss this excluded Clause, which seems rather irregular.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that is the position. The general purposes committee comprises the whole of the council in committee.
Mr. Delargy: Even though it comprises every person on the council, it nevertheless remains merely a committee. It is not the council, no matter how large it is or how small; and from the deliberations of that committee the public and the Press are excluded.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member makes his point with more force than logic. I should have thought that hon. Members of this House would be aware that there is a reasonably close resemblance, for example, except for certain technical matters, between a Committee of the whole House and the House of Commons itself, meeting in the same Chamber, discussing the same matters and consisting of the same people, with one very important exception, Mr. Speaker, which does not apply to the difference between the general purposes committee and the Council.
Mr. Delargy Mr. Delargy rose—
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member must interrupt again, I will of course give way.
Mr. Delargy: I interrupt upon a point of correction. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House, but if he is trying to say that a

1109
Committee of this House is in all respects comparable to the general purposes committee of a local council, which includes every member of that council, then he is, deliberately or not, misleading the House. There is one important way in which they differ, which is that from the deliberations of a general purposes committee of a local council the Press and the public are excluded. They are not excluded when this House is in Committee.
Mr. Walker-Smith: That point might have some force but for the fact that this meeting of the general purposes committee was followed immediately by a town's meeting. There was no question of the public not being informed of the withdrawal of this Clause from the Bill. So far as the attendance of the public is concerned—
Mr. Bing: It is desirable, if the House is to be put in possession of the facts, to state that at the town's meeting the question was ruled out of Order, and when the report of the general purposes committee came back to the council, a motion to discuss this very matter which had been discussed at the general purposes committee was ruled out of order. The hon. Member ought at least to put the facts before the House or not speak of them if he is not fully aware of them.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for showing so close a knowledge of what went on in the general purposes committee of the Bolton Corporation.
Mr. Bing: It was in the papers.
Mr. Walker-Smith: As I understand the argument it is that if the public had been allowed to attend this meeting of the committee, a different result would have been come to. That is the suggestion made in all seriousness by hon. Members opposite. I cannot take so low a view of the elected representatives of the people, as they apparently do, as to believe that those representatives would come to a different decision from that to which their consciences and reason impelled them by reason of the fact that the public galleries were either full or empty. [Interruption.] It is obvious that one or two hon. Members opposite do approach this matter in a very different spirit and think that there is nothing unusual or improper in expressing differ-
1110
ent views when under observation from those expressed when in private. If that is the point, it is an approach to public life which I do not share, with which I cannot sympathise, and which I do not altogether comprehend.
It is right that the House should also have regard to the position that will be arrived at if the Clause is inserted in the Bill as a result of recommittal to a Committee of the whole House. First of all it will put the Corporation in the invidious position of giving at any rate the, appearance of having breached an agreement which was voluntarily entered into. Secondly, it will undoubtedly deprive those who object to the Clause of the right of petitioning against it. It will deprive them of the right which they could have had at the town's meeting of demanding a poll under the provisions of the Ninth Schedule of the Act of 1933. Furthermore, and quite apart from those very obnoxious consequences, it will, in my respectful submission, put the House of Commons in an invidious position also.
7.30 p.m.
As the House is well aware, there is this procedure upstairs for the consideration of Clauses of Private Bills, and that procedure involves the hearing of evidence, the cross-examining of witnesses and the adducing of arguments by people skilled in doing so. It is by reason of that procedure that the House, through the Members of those Committees, is able to come to a conclusion on matters on which from their own knowledge they could not expect to do. The House is being asked to jettison in respect of this Clause that well-tried and essential procedure.
Mr. John Lewis Mr. John Lewis (Bolton) rose—
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member for Bolton can restrain his impatience at least until I reach a semicolon, I shall be grateful. The House is being asked to recommit this Clause to a Committee of the whole House and to depart from that procedure. If the Clause is inserted it will be inserted not as a result of that careful and patient examination of facts, but as a result of a vote of the House of Commons without the necessary local knowledge to enable a right decision to be reached. That is why I say that this is putting the House of Commons into an invidious if not an improper position.
Mr. J. Lewis: I must apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman but I am quite sure he does not want to mislead the House into thinking that consideration was given to this Clause upstairs when the Bill was considered under the Private Bill procedure. No discussion whatsoever took place in regard to this Clause, and that does not mean any indictment of the hon. Members who sat on that Committee.
Mr. Walker-Smith: When I gave way to the hon. Member I thought his interruption would be pertinent but the comment he has just made has nothing to do with my point. Of course it was not considered by the Committee because it was withdrawn before the Bill went to the Committee. The hon. Member for Bolton must recognise that that is so. My point is that if it is now inserted, it does not get all that detailed examination. The hon. Member's interruption was beside the point.
So far as the local issue goes, I am not competent to enter upon that. I see that the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) is in his place and it may be that he will be able to add something about the local issues, but it is not territory on which it would he proper for me to trespass. I have put the position in this matter as what I believe it to be, a constitutional matter of some importance. It is not in any respects a party question and it should not be the subject of a party attitude. I sincerely hope that it will not be. I sincerely hope that the House will treat this Amendment not only as a grave departure from precedent and usage but also as a violation of the proper approach of the House of Commons to Private Bills and the local issues which are involved there-in. I hope that, recognising that, the House will reject the Amendment for the recommittal of the Clause.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I rise as a Member in no way connected with Bolton who takes the view that the Amendment only remotely concerns Bolton. What we are concerned with is the exceedingly weighty statement made by the Chairman of Ways and Means. If his statement is not accepted, it means that the House is going outside the procedure laid down for Private Bills. Hon. Members should bear that point in mind.
1112
The principle behind Private Bills is that their provisions shall be open to be petitioned against and that the promoters and the petitioners can be examined and cross-examined by the members of the Committee. The House will be doing a very dangerous thing and something which has only been done once in the last 100 years, under circumstances with which I am not familiar, if it passes the Motion. I most earnestly beg the House not lightly, wantonly or inadvisedly, to go beyond the procedure for Private Bills which has been laid down and has worked very successfully for a long time. I should like to thank the Chairman of Ways and Means for his admirable statement.
Mr. Bing: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) did not consult his colleague the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) before he said that this had not been done for the last 100 years. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield did exactly the same thing in 1936 and brought a great number of hon. Gentlemen—
Sir John Mellor: I did not move to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. I moved on Report stage to leave out a Clause which was objectionable to my constituents, and my constituents were not the promoters of the Bill.
Mr. Bing: I want to refer to the arguments used by the Chairman of Ways and Means on that occasion, but I must first deal with the argument that this was a matter that should have been considered upstairs.
Mr. Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his statement that I was wrong in saying that this has only been done once in the last 100 years?
Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman really wishes to be technical, lie will find that this is actually the procedure followed in 1900 and in 1843 on two Irish Bills.
Mr. Nicholson: It occurred in relation to the Sheffield Corporation Bill, and the previous reference was 1847. I am quite right in saying that it is once in 100 years.
Mr. Bing: If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the point and says that an actual recommittal did not take place, that may well be so. There have been a number of recommittals, though not to a Committee of the whole House. We have

1113
to do this for purely technical reasons. In the event of the hotel being run at a loss and that loss somehow falling on the Exchequer, it may be more desirable to recommit the Clause. The real issue is whether this matter can be discussed on Report stage or not. If hon. Members like to ride off by means of a footnote in Erskine May, they may well do so.
It has been said that this was subjected to careful examination, but one reason why this is raised here is that the House can discuss what could not be discussed by the Committee upstairs. The people who object to it have no locus standi. Hon. Members may recall the gerrymander of Londonderry when the inhabitants of Londonderry were held to have no locus standi to raise the alteration of their Bill so as to deprive them of seats. The passage in the minutes of evidence dealing with what has been described as "a thorough consideration" is very short. It is as follows:
"The Recorder of Bolton, appearing on behalf of the Corporation: Part X of the Bill deals with a rating matter and the abolition of the last of the—'"
At that point the Chairman, my hon. Friend, interrupted and said:
"Part X is residential hotel,' is it not?"
The Recorder replied:
"Part X, residential hotel, has gone. My copy of the Bill has been re-numbered."
Mr. Walker-Smith Mr. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to reach my semi-colon? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this matter will not receive any further consideration, surely he has forgotten his own possible source of political advancement, the other place, which will have an absolute opportunity to reconsider this matter if we put it back. Therefore there can be a first-class judicial examination of this. All we are asking is that this matter should be looked at again.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I knew I should have to wait some time before the hon. Member reached a semi-colon because his speeches are mainly punctuated by exclamation marks, but would he be good enough to explain what was the relevance of the passage he read out from the proceedings upstairs? Of course, it was no part of my case that this Clause had been considered upstairs. How could it have been when it had been withdrawn? My case, which evidently has not been
1114
understood by the hon. Member, was that a Clause such as this ought not to be put in a Bill other than by such procedure, and it can only have that procedure if the promoters have it in their Bill.
Mr. Bing: If I may deal shortly with that point before I proceed, obviously when a council and the people of a town are invited approve a Bill, they approve it as a whole. Then a point comes at which a Clause is struck out of the Bill. Now the promoters, or people speaking on their behalf, are coming here and saying, "We had no opportunity of putting our case." Of course, they could have put their case. Had the Recorder wished to do so, he could have said, "This Clause was withdrawn under peculiar circumstances. I would like the Committee to look at the whole of our procedure and to weigh it up." Had this been an unopposed Bill, the Committee would have had power to deal with it. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will remember that when he was dealing with the Birmingham Corporation Bill, it was exactly this point which was made. It was at that point that the Chairman of Ways and Means said to the House, "You should not go into this matter because it has been referred to an Unopposed Bills Committee which has had an opportunity of considering just these points and of hearing evidence." But because the Boy Scouts Association and other bodies opposed various provisions in the Birmingham Corporation Bill, it did not go to an Unopposed Bills Committee and this sort of question was not considered.
We should pass to the merits of this matter because it is extremely difficult to deal with the valid points made by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Those who are supporting the recommittal do not question those points. What we are saying in effect—and it will come out when we have a chance of dealing with the merits—is that to say that there was an agreement begs the question. What appears to have taken place—and there is a prima facia case for saying this—was that there was pressure of various sorts brought on the members of the corporation to change their views, and that there was no agreement whatsoever; there was nothing which the corporation received in exchange for the concessions which they gave.

1115
I do not know whether anyone will tell me that the agreement referred to is a binding agreement. I am informed, and I have made inquiries about this, that the so-called agreement on which this Clause was withdrawn is not an agreement enforceable at law, and the only method by which it could be enforceable is if there were a permissive Clause in the Bill which would enable the corporation to build a municipal hotel if these other people failed to carry out what they promised to do. There was no change in the circumstances whatsoever. It is difficult to deal with this without going into the merits, and that is why I hope the House will not stand on a technical point but will allow us to discuss the matter on the merits.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether people change their minds when sitting in private from when they are sitting in public. So far as can be seen, the council, sitting in public with the full facts before them, with absolutely the full details before them which they had had in private, with no other facts before them, came to a completely different decision when they came to a hurriedly summoned meeting, of which the leaders of the political parties were not notified, from that reached when it took place in private. If that is so, it is a matter which the House ought to look at on its merits. All we ask at this stage is that the House permits us to pass on to a stage in which, by proposing the Clause, we may discuss the matter on its merits. I know that the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) has other facts and views to put before the House, but it is difficult to do that unless we have that opportunity. So I ask the House, irrespective of the merits of the matter, at any rate to let us have a discussion of this question.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So many remarkable things have occurred in this Debate that I do not think one should be surprised at anything. However, I was a little surprised by two things. In the first place, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) solemnly introduced into this discussion the consideration that the agreement by the Bolton Corporation to withdraw this Clause was not a legally binding agreement. As a matter of law I agree with
1116
him, but it was a remarkable suggestion to put forward because it must have meant, if it meant anything at all, that there would be nothing improper or inappropriate in that agreement being disregarded.
That is a remarkable proposition, which must strike at the root of our Private Bill procedure. I will not attempt as the Chairman of Ways and Means has done it with far greater authority than any other hon. Member could possibly do, to refer to the perfectly legitimate process of negotiation which takes place. Hon. Members who have had experience of these committees upstairs know that it takes place, but what the hon. Member for Hornchurch was suggesting was that where a corporation, a promoter of a Bill, had withdrawn a Clause and for that reason, and no doubt for that reason alone, had caused those who objected to that Clause not to put forward their case by counsel, not to adduce evidence, it was apparently quite appropriate afterwards to say, "Rely on the fact that that agreement to withdraw the Clause was not legally binding and go forward and reintroduce the Clause." That is not only a remarkable proposition from the moral aspect, but a proposition which, if given any support whatever, would render quite impossible the necessary negotiations which take place before Committees upstairs.
There is only one other point which occurs to me. It is rather remarkable that, although the House has had the good or bad fortune of hearing a number of hon. Members, so far we have not had the opportunity of hearing the views of the hon. Members for the borough directly concerned. The name of the junior Member for that borough appears at the head of this Motion, and he has sat in his place while allegations of, at least, irregularities by that Corporation have been made by other hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Amendment.
Mr. J. Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept my statement when I tell him that the reason I remained in my place and did not attempt to catch Mr. Speaker's eye was because I thought it was unnecessary at this stage to deal with only one part of the case and, by necessity of the Ruling which would inevitably come from the Chair, to have to avoid any

1117
reference whatever to the merits of the case. I prefer to reserve my remarks until such time as I have the opportunity of making a comprehensive statement. The hon. Gentleman should not take advantage of that. If I succeed in catching the eye of Mr. Speaker, or the eye of the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee, the hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that I shall be heard.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the duties of a Parliamentary representative in his Borough is, of course, a matter solely for himself and for his conscience. I can only say that it seems to me a peculiar view of the duties of a Parliamentary representative that he should place his name upon a Motion, that other supporters of it should make direct insinuations against municipal government in his borough, and that he should remain in his place apparently neither supporting nor repudiating those allegations. I hope very much from the point of view not least of a speedy termination of this Debate, that the hon. Gentleman will indicate at the earliest possible stage his attitude upon this Amendment. I think it is owed both to the Bolton Corporation and to the House that he should do so.
The case, the only case, for forcing upon this corporation powers for which it is not asking is that the proceedings of this corporation have been in some degree irregular. The House only has before it at present the express wish of this corporation, which is that they shall not have these powers. It seems that the only conceivable argument for going behind it is the argument at which the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Delargy) hinted rather 'than stated, the argument that although the corporation appears not to want these powers its voice has been interfered with in some way. That was the suggestion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to this point, that that would be the only conceivable basis upon which a case for a Motion of this sort could possibly be supported. It is for that reason, no doubt, that the hon. Member, with his very clear and logical mind, put forward that argument.
The House is entitled, therefore, to have from the representative of the borough concerned, who has placed his name upon this Amendment in support of this, which appears to be the only argu-
1118
ment—certainly, it is the only argument which has been used—whether he is prepared to advise this House that irregularities of that kind have taken place in the Corporation.
Mr. J. Lewis Mr. J. Lewis rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Just let me finish. The House is entitled to be told that in fairness to the corporation. As this is the last point I am making, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity now, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, of making the position perfectly clear.
Sir J. Mellor: Before the Question is put, surely the House is to have the assistance of at least one of the hon. Members who represent Bolton. The hon. Gentleman the Junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) must appreciate that if the Amendment for recommittal is not carried, he will have no chance of addressing the House or the Committee at all. Surely, therefore, he should take this opportunity of giving us his views. I am hoping that we shall also have the advice and assistance of his hon. Friend the Senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones).
Mr. J. Lewis: I should like to make clear to the hon. Baronet, as I endeavoured to make clear to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who did not wish to accept the point, that in order to save the time of the House I support the recommittal so that the whole matter, including the merits of the case, can be discussed comprehensively. For that reason I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support the recommittal and let us get on with the facts of the case.
Sir J. Mellor: As it is very probable that this Motion for recommittal will not be carried, as the hon. Member must know, it seems that he is trying to run away from making any speech at all. I noticed, however, a moment ago that the Parliamentary Secretary was about to rise, and I do not wish to stand between him and the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): It is only right that the House should know the views of the Government on the point which was raised by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government take the same view as he does, that it would

1119
not be desirable to recommit the Bill. In taking this view, as, indeed, the Chairman of Ways and Means said himself, the Government also are expressing no view at all on the question whether or not local authorities in general, or the Bolton Corporation in particular, ought to have powers to erect or to carry on residential hotels. Further, we would not express any view as to the rightness or otherwise of the proceedings which led the Corporation to drop the provision relating to hotels from their Bill. It is a matter which has been raised on several occasions. I would only say that before the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, gave his approval to the promotion of the Bill, he received a statutory declaration from the town clerk that the requirements of the 1933 Act had been complied with.
It is true, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has rightly said, that had the Corporation not withdrawn the Clause the interests involved would, under the Rules of Procedure of the House, have had the full right to petition against the provision and to be heard by a Committee of the House. The effect of the withdrawal of the Clause by the Corporation was, of course, that the question was not considered by the Committee on the Bill, and no evidence was taken on it. This proposal would mean, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has emphasised, an attempt to enforce upon, or at least to hand to, the promoters of the Bill a power which they do not seek.
This right to petition the House against provisions in a local Bill affecting particular interests is an important one and should not lightly be denied. It is certainly one that does not affect only the interests involved in this particular case. A Committee of the whole House cannot take evidence, and if the Bill were recommitted, the interests here involved would no doubt feel a proper sense of grievance at not having the normal right under Private Bill procedure. What is more, if the Bill were recommitted and the Clause put in, the corporation might very well feel that they ought not to operate it because of their agreement with the hotel interests. There is, indeed, nothing to compel them to do so.
The House may feel, therefore, that, without considering or expressing any
1120
view on the merits of these powers, the Private Bill procedure does not lend itself to a recommittal of the Bill at this stage without throwing, perhaps, undue hardship on not only the interests here involved, which, as I have said, might be seriously affected but on others. I hope, therefore, that after consideration of this point of view my hon. Friends who put down the Motion will be prepared to withdraw it.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Although it would be an exaggeration to describe the few remarks we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary as a very clear and resonant lead, I rise to associate the Opposition with what I understand to be his general intention. We agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Amendment should be resisted, but we cannot allow the Debate to come to a conclusion without once more giving an opportunity to the junior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) to make his own position plain. He must have known the guidance that w as likely to fall from the lips of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He probably knew the attitude his own Government were going to take to the proposal. He knew, therefore, that he would have no opportunity at a later stage of being able to make the detailed comments which he is anxious to make. His silence can only be interpreted as a readiness to allow the corporation and city, of which he is one of the representatives in this House, to have veiled slanders raised against the conduct of its public affairs by his own colleagues, and a readiness to take no part himself in attempting to dispute the accuracy of those charges, even though he put his own name at the top of the Amendment.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): I rise to make the attempt briefly to give the House something of the facts as I, the senior Member for the borough of Bolton know them. My borough council decided to present a Town's Bill. The Bill was duly drawn up and included 140 Clauses of various designs and intentions, including Clause 87. That was a Clause to give the borough the right, if it so desired, at any time subsequent to the Bill being agreed upon, to build a residential hotel. The Bill became public

1121
property and it was, of course, as is usual, looked at by all the interested parties. My information—and I have sought to make certain that it is completely accurate—is as follows. The brewers in the district made known informally their desire to discuss the Clauses in the Bill with the council and they met the Mayor of the Corporation and the Town Clerk. They made certain informal observations and submissions, subsequent to which the Town Clerk advised the Mayor, which was his duty as the legal authority, to convene the Parliamentary sub-committee.
8.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary sub-committee sat —I have the minutes in my hand—and discussed carefully and completely the whole of the submission of the brewers concerned. They went into the details of the size of the hotel they were prepared to build, and, as a 'result of the detailed submissions and discussions at which a majority of Socialist Members were present—I have the names in my hand—it was resolved:
"That the town clerk be instructed to take such action as may be necessary for the withdrawal of Clause 87 of the Corporation Bill which has been deposited in Parliament."
Subsequent to the meeting of the Parliamentary sub-committee, the general purposes committee met. The general purposes committee was the whole of the council and the rules under which that committee sit give it the right to make decisions. After careful discussion—and I can give a detailed, authentic, written report, not from any opposition parties in the corporation, but from my own people—by a majority of 42 to 32, it was agreed that the Bill be submitted with Clause 87 deleted. Subsequently there was a town's meeting and, although I was not present at that public meeting, I am informed that the Bill was discussed in the light of the fact that Clause 87, by previous resolution of the general purposes committee was deleted and no comment or observations were allowed thereon.
Later, by a huge majority, the Bill was adopted and subsequently the council, in full council assembled, discussed the minutes of the previous meeting of the council and, by 64 votes to none, approved the decision to withdraw Clause 87, and the Bill, with the Clause withdrawn, was submitted to the Select Committee which sat upstairs in this House.
1122
I submit that this is not so much a matter of party opinion, or minority opinion. I bow to no one in my desire to further the interests of the party I have the honour to represent and which brought me here. But this is a matter of constitutional procedure and, in my candid opinion, constitutional procedure was followed. It has been suggested from benches on this side of the House that some form of subversive or wrong legal direction could be adduced in the carrying out of this Bill. I submit that the members of the Borough Council of Bolton—members of all parties—are as able and as competent as anyone to see to it that they would not act under any wrong direction whatever. If wrong direction had been so given, there has been ample opportunity since for that council assembly to take to task any person who is alleged or suggested to have given wrong direction. No such procedure has taken place. Therefore, the Bill was presented, Clause 87 by agreement and democratic constitutional decision having been deleted, and the Bill was considered upstairs by a Select Committee. This is not so much a matter of a minority, or a majority, or party opinion, but of the constitutional procedure of this House remaining inviolate.
Mr. Bing: Ought not my hon. Friend to inform the House that the circular sent to all Members of Parliament has been repudiated? If he likes to have the telegram sent by the leader of the town council, Alderman J. Vickers, I can give it to him.
Mr. Jones: All I can say is that I have not received any telegram of that type and it is a rather remarkable fact that the senior Member for the Borough has not received it. It is rather late to hand it to me now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I now have the telegram and, with the consent of the House, I am prepared to read it. It says:
"On behalf of the Labour Party and Labour Group we dissociate ourselves from the circular sent to all Members of Parliament by the Town Clerk of Bolton."
That is signed by Alderman J. Vickers.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order. A telegram of that nature might, for all we know, be sent by anyone, from anywhere. I would ask if we could have further proof showing to whom it was sent and who in

1123
fact sent it. We have had experience of other telegrams which was not satisfactory.
Mr. Jones: In view of the fact that that telegram has been handed to me conveying a decision not previously conveyed to me, I think I am entitled to read a letter bearing the signature of exactly the same person.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Jones: On 4th February I received a letter over the signature of the same person who signed this telegram and the letter reads as follows:
"Having regard to the fact that the Clauses in this Bill have been fully and thoroughly debated by the Bolton Town Council and, holding the view that it is in the interests of the county borough of Bolton that this Bill be approved by Parliament, I would urge upon you, with a due sense of responsibility, to take what steps lie in your power to influence Mr. Bing to withdraw his Motion."
This letter was sent on the occasion when the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), not representing my borough, was prevailed on by someone, I know not whom, to put down a resolution of which I have no knowledge. I wish to make my position quite clear. As a good Socialist and democrat, I am always prepared to listen to the minority point of view and at all times to abide by democratic constitutional decision. Therefore, I submit to the House again that this is not so much a matter, as has been suggested, of party prejudice, or venom, or spleen, but a matter of constitutional procedure.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance in this matter? A rather serious position has arisen in which an hon. Member has presented a telegram to the House which purports to come from an individual in Bolton who has previously written a letter which carries the same signature, but I understand that it is in exactly a contrary sense. Therefore—
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Rules of the House. Mr. John Lewis.
Mr. J. Lewis: Having regard to what has already been said tonight, but before I proceed to clear the air and deal with
1124
the real facts of this case, I ought to say quite specifically that I was in telephonic communication this morning with Alderman Vickers, the leader of the town council and in fact I am in a position to confirm that the telegram received by my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) was sent by Alderman Vickers and is a perfectly genuine document on which this House can rely. I do not think it is at all necessary or desirable to hide from the House the fact that the Bolton Labour Party, its executive committee, its Labour Group and its delegate conference have passed resolutions as a result of which, on consideration, my hon. Friends and I deemed it necessary in the interests of both Parliamentary and local democracy to move the Amendment we have before us tonight.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken against this Amendment and my hon. Friend the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) feels himself, for reasons best known to himself, unable to support those of us who are carrying out what the Labour Party in Bolton want us to do. But that is not a matter for discussion tonight. That must be a matter for the judgment of the electors in Bolton and those in other parts of the country.
What I am concerned about is that the facts have not been presented fairly and specifically to the House. There have been notable omissions, particularly with reference to the letter which was received by the senior Member for Bolton from Alderman Vickers. My hon. Friend failed to read the further letter sent to him which specifically explained the reason why Alderman Vickers had sent the earlier letter. I shall came to that in a moment. I propose, and I hope that the House will help me, to go into the facts in this case so that Members, particularly on this side of the House, shall know precisely what happened in respect of this particular case, and shall not have dust thrown in their eyes inadvertently or wittingly by hon. Members opposite.
May I first make clear the fact that a special Parliamentary sub-committee, which included Members of all parties represented on the Council, was set up, and instructed the town clerk to present a draft for submission to the sub-committee and to the general purposes committee of the town council. I am now coming to what I regard as the most

1125
material factor in this matter. When the first meeting of this general purposes committee of the council to consider the draft was held, that draft included Clause 87, the hotel Clause, and it was supported by all parties, including the Conservative Party represented by hon. Members opposite. There was one dissentient, Alderman Entwistle, and the town clerk and others prevailed upon him to approve the Bill as it stood, with that Clause included in it; and Alderman Entwistle subsequently withdrew his opposition. Thus the Bill, with the hotel Clause included, was approved virtually unanimously by all Members of the council including those of the Conservative Party. The date of the meeting to which I have referred was 9th November.
At this meeting of the town council the Bill was unanimously passed with the hotel Clause in it, and the town clerk rose in his seat, and said, "Members of the council, this is a completely unanimous vote, and the Bill is a good one." It was arranged that the ratepayers should have an opportunity to approve this Bill at a town's meeting on the following Thursday night—[Interruption]—I intend to make the facts clear whether hon. Gentlemen opposite interrupt and try to prevent me from being heard or not. I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House to note that at the meeting of the council to which I referred the Conservative Party did not object to this Clause being in the Bill. If they had had any fundamental or radical objection in principle they would have done so. In fact they supported the hotel Clause at the meeting to which I refer, and it was a unanimous decision of the town council. It is what happened subsequently which my hon. Friends and I regard as very slippery practice, and I propose to make it perfectly clear to the House what I mean in that connection.
8.15 p.m.
The town's meeting was due to be held on the following Thursday night. In the "Bolton Evening News" of 11th December, there appeared the following:
"Any elector who objects to the proposed Parliamentary Bill for Bolton—which has already received town council approval—or to any part of it—"
and for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) I would emphasise that by underlining those words—
1126
"will have an opportunity to express his opinion and even propose to have some part of the Bill altered, at the town's meeting which is to be held in the Albert Hall on Thursday evening. The meeting has been called to discuss the Bill and any elector is entitled to attend. The meeting will probaly be presided over by the mayor, Alderman Hampson, and will begin by an explanation of the Bill by the town clerk, Mr. Philip S. Rennison, after which questions on the Bill will be invited. The mayor will then ask for a resolution approving the whole Bill, and if no objection is raised, such a resolution will be moved, seconded and carried. If there is an objection, each part of the Bill will be dealt with separately"—
I stress this point—
"and those sections to which there is objection will be left until the end. Speeches for and against will be allowed, and if when the vote is taken there is a majority against a certain clause, that Clause will be deleted unless the town council demands a poll. Alternatively, if a dissatisfied minority can muster 100 people to sign a form, they too can demand a poll."
What does that mean? It was made specifically clear in the local Press that in the town's meeting every opportunity would be given for discussion to take place in respect of any Clause of the Bill, taken separately or as a whole.
The following occurred after that meeting of the council and before the town's meeting. It would appear that the town clerk was approached by representatives of the local brewery and by other trade interests in Bolton whose object appeared to be to ensure that Clause 87 should be deleted from the Bill. I would remind the House that this was after the town council had unanimously passed this Bill with that Clause included. Those trade interests presented themselves to the town clerk and said that in certain circumstances they were prepared to proceed with the extension "with all expedition" of a hotel known as the "Packhorse Hotel" which it had been decided they would enlarge.
I wish to make the point that there was no special bargain as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, with great respect to him, because in 1946, I was asked to survey the plans for the extension of this hotel. There had been no change whatever, and when the council as a whole passed this Bill unanimously they were fully aware of the fact that McGee, Marshall and Co. had submitted plans to the local authority and elsewhere to extend this hotel. No new situation had

1127
arisen. It was only after the Bill had been agreed to by the town council in the form I have described, that certain trade interests came along and privately, in conjunction with the town clerk, asked that there should be a change in procedure, and that the permissive Clause should be deleted from the Bill.
I propose to quote in a moment from the local Press in order to substantiate the words I am using and in order to ensure that hon. Members opposite may not feel that I am attempting in any way to mislead the House. There was no legal obligation involved whatsoever; the plans to build this hotel had been submitted two years before; there was nothing new about the matter at all. The town clerk decided to call a meeting of the general purposes committee in order to propose that this Clause should be deleted. That was between the time of the town council meeting and the town's meeting. It may be of interest if I read the statement made by Alderman James Vickers, justice of the peace, leader of the town council of Bolton, a statement made to the local Press which is headed "Duty to Tear Away Veil of Secrecy." I propose to read the statement of this man, who have given his whole life to public service in Bolton and who is highly esteemed in Lancashire. He is a man whose view my hon. Friends would like to hear. His statement was printed in the "Bolton Evening News" as follows—the date of this was 21st December, 1948—
"In a statement to the 'Evening News' on the decision not to seek powers for a municipal hotel in the Parliament Bill Alderman Vickers, leader of the Labour Group of Bolton Town Council, says he felt it his duty 'to tear away the veil of secrecy which I had to maintain as leader of the Council last week.' Alderman Vickers states that, unknown to him, a meeting took place betwen the Mayor and the Town Clerk and a deputation of brewery representatives and others on December 9th, when he himself was engaged in a by-election. He was therefore surprised to be told that the Council was to consider the Bill again, as the Council had given approval to the whole of the Bill. 'I felt there was no fundamental change to be discussed, since we have known all along of the plans to extend the Pack Horse Hotel and of the opposition we were to expect from the trade.' The whole Bill, as it had been approved by the Council sitting in public, could, he insists, have been conveniently and democratically dealt with at the public meeting. 'It was disconcerting,' he continues, 'to note the rapidity of movement of the brewery directors and to realise that a vested interest
1128
can press its claims sufficiently to cause a sudden and complete change in the attitude of so many members of the Council, with the public prevented from airing their views or asking for a poll on this important matter.' I wish to state clearly that I was never invited—"
this is the leader of the town council speaking—
"to be present at the meeting with the deputation and, as policy was at stake, leaders of the political groups in the Council should have been invited. The methods adopted are dangerous for the future of local government and as imperious as in the days of the patricians, plebeians, and slaves in ancient Rome."
It may interest hon. Members to know that that was the statement made by Alderman J. Vickers on 21st December.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Would not the hon. Member agree that Alderman Vickers made all these representations and arguments if perhaps in a little different language in a meeting of the general purposes committee on 13th December and quite obviously there those arguments failed to carry conviction with his colleagues, inasmuch as the motion to delete the Clause was carried.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friends may be interested to know something of the standing orders of the general purposes committee. According to the constitution of the standing orders of the Bolton Town Council the powers of the general purposes committee include
"the power to transact all business which is not comprised in the powers delegated to any other committee of the council and such business as should be referred to the committee by the council or by any of the committee thereof, subject to the acts and proceedings of the committee being approved by the council and also with power to transact all business which might arise from time to time and cannot conveniently be postponed.…"
What I am going to state now, and about which my hon. Friends may be interested to concern themselves, is what happened at this town's meeting when this particular matter was brought up. This town's meeting took place on Thursday, 16th December, and I submit to the House that never in the history of local authorities has there been such a travesty of justice and a complete abrogation of the common rights of the citizens in a county borough. On the recommendation of the town clerk—and I am seeking to avoid specific reference to the town clerk for obvious reasons because I am afraid in certain matters I shall have to refer to his conduct at a later date—but on

1129
his recommendation—and this is not a matter subject to dispute but is included in the Press reports—the mayor ruled that the particular Clause relating to the municipal hotel could not be discussed at the town's meeting. In fact it was presented as a fait accompli.
On the recommendation of the town clerk the mayor ruled that this Clause should not be discussed. So we have the position of the council unanimously approving a Bill previously at a full council meeting including the Clause and then when it comes once again to a full meeting of the town council the mayor, on the recommendation of the town clerk ruled, "You cannot discuss this particular Clause." The town clerk said the council's instructions to him to withdraw the Clause, to be carried out, he said, as arranged between the brewers and the council, was not a legal contract, but the council's word was its bond and the council would expect and were confident that the brewers would carry out their part of the bargain to the letter.
When the town clerk made that statement he knew full well that McGee, Marshall and Co. had applied to the local authority two years previously for permission to extend that hotel. So it would appear that the deputation from the representatives of the brewers, the Bolton & District Licensed Victuallers' Association, the Chamber of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce had the effect of bringing about an alteration in what had been a unanimous decision previously made by the town council, and this arose only as a result of a private meeting which took place between the brewery interests and the town clerk.
Now I come to the final stage in this unhappy story, which has to do with the meeting of the town council when this matter was discussed. I should point out to the House that no such statutory notice of the meeting which had been published some time earlier had been amended. The public of Bolton were not, in fact, advised that this Bill would be presented in a different form having regard to the new circumstances. When the final town council meeting was held Alderman Vickers was refused permission by the mayor, on the recommendation of the town clerk, to answer any questions on this particular Clause, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have the temerity to come before this House and
1130
suggest that this has been constitutional procedure and that my hon. Friends and myself are attempting to do something which in effect is most unusual and contrary to the best traditions which one would expect in a situation of this kind.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member persists in saying that it is the Opposition who are saying such and such. Is he not aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Parliamentary Secretary and the senior Member for Bolton have all agreed that the procedure was fully constitutional?
Mr. Lewis: I do not agree at all that the hon. Gentleman has represented the matter in its true perspective. I have the deepest sympathy with the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. They do not know the facts. They are getting them now for the first time and I hope that as a result they will decide to change the point of view which they have expressed to the House.
I wish to summarise my statement with a reference to what happened at the final meeting. The House will bear with me when I say that this was the most important meeting, the final meeting to approve the Bill before Bolton finished with it for the time and it came to Parliament to go through the necessary stages before going on the Statute Book. There was uproar in that meeting of the Bolton town council. The leader tried to rise twice and was refused permission to speak. Councillor O'Hara declared that a most unfortunate precedent had been introduced. Councillor Fagan said that, as the Clause was still in the Bill and as the general purposes committee's decision to withdraw it had not been carried out, it was competent for the meeting at that time to discuss whether or not that Clause should be deleted. In fact, they all failed to achieve what they desired, which was a discussion on the matter. The decision remained and references were made at that meeting to an "iron curtain." I myself have not the slightest doubt that the people of Bolton were kept in ignorance, in the circumstances, of what had taken place behind closed doors. The Bolton Corporation Bill was passed at that meeting in the suspicious circumstances which I have outlined, without one single word of discussion having taken place on the deletion of this Clause.

1131
8.30 p.m.
I ought to make it clear that on this occasion, apart from being misguided and misguiding the council in other respects, the town clerk made a very serious error here. He advised the town council that if they did not pass this Bill unanimously the Bill would be lost. There is no question of challenging my statement in that respect, because a very careful Press report was taken of this meeting. In fact I have the Press report available here.
Mr. J. Jones: I suggest that the words used by the town clerk were "absolute majority" and not "unanimously."
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has handed me the actual reference. I think the House should be satisfied on this point, because it is most important. This is an extract from the "Bolton Evening News" of 5th January. It is headed "Bill if amended would be lost. Town Clerk's ruling." It states:
"Because they were told by the Town Clerk, Mr. P. S. Rennison, that the whole Bill would be lost if every member did not agree today to its going through in its present form, Bolton Town Council unanimously passed a resolution at a special meeting today."
That in itself is significant. No doubt my hon. Friend the senior Member for Bolton was under a misapprehension. The local Press does not support the Labour Party. It is a Liberal Paper. It may be interesting to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose consciences make it necessary for them to come into the House and refer to the unconstitutional procedure, to hear something of what the Opposition Press said about this procedure of which we are complaining tonight. The "Bolton Journal and Guardian," which I am pleased to say is a scrupulously fair paper, said:
"The last-minute decision of the General Purposes Committee of the Bolton Corporation to withdraw from the proposed Parliamentary Bill the Clause which would have given power to build and operate a municipal hotel is, to say the least, disturbing. Whether or not we agree with the proposal of a municipal hotel—and the question has never been publicly discussed—all ratepayers are bound seriously to consider whether or not democratic local government has been best served by the method adopted to secure the deletion of this Clause. The outstanding fact is that the Council approved the inclusion of this Clause without a dissentient vote although there was one abstention."
It then goes on to refer to the Conserva-
1132
tive and Liberal members of the general purposes committee. It says:
"One finds it hard to believe, and it will be greatly disturbing to one's faith in local government if we have to believe that men who have a conscientious objection to a municipal hotel can be silent in public council."
On the recommendation of the town clerk, permission was not given for a discussion to take place at the final meeting of the town council. I submit that it is the duty of members of the corporation to accept the legal advice of the adviser to the corporation—that is the town clerk. He told the town council in those circumstances, "If you do not all vote unanimously for this Bill, it will be lost." Members of the council, actuated by a desire to ensure that the very best possible form of local government should exist in the town and who did not want to see the whole Bill lost because of this Clause, accepted the advice of the town clerk, submitted under duress—
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have taken the opportunity of getting a cutting of the report of the town council meeting. What the town clerk said was:
"It was within the knowledge of all members that the matter had been disposed of by the general purposes committee which had power to act. The only matter before the council was the resolution confirming approval of the Bill which required an absolute majority or the whole Bill would be lost."
That means that if there are 100 members of a town council, 51 must vote. The resolution could be lost by 50 votes to nil. In fact, I was once party to a little manoeuvre at a council of which I was a member in persuading people to abstain in that way; although there were no votes cast against the Bill, it was not allowed to proceed. It seems to me that the town clerk did, in fact, give the right advice to the town council. There had to be a clear majority of all the members of the council.
Mr. Lewis: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not wish to misguide himself or any other hon. Member. He was reading from the same document as I have been reading from, but what he failed to do was to read from the headline downwards. He merely extracted one small part.
Mr. Ede: The town council did not listen to the headline when listening to the town clerk.
Mr. Lewis: We know the views already expressed by the Government, but what I wish to do is to reiterate to the House what was included in the top part of that document and in the first paragraph from which the Home Secretary has already read. That stated that the town council had been told by the town clerk that the Bill would be lost if every member of the council did not agree to its going through in that form. I think that my authority for this statement is just as good as that of the Home Secretary, because we are both reading from the same document.
From my consultations with the members of the town council, I can say that the statement made by the town clerk in fact was that if every member did not vote for the Bill, it would be lost, and I ask hon. Members to agree that that is the true and authentic record of what took place at that meeting.
Mr. J. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the junior Member for Bolton for allowing me an opportunity to reiterate what I said before. I was in consultation as recently as last Saturday morning with the town clerk and members of all parties, and the word "absolute" as against the word "unanimous" was agreed to as the word which was used.
Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, the leader of the town council has been in touch with me and has told me precisely the opposite, and it may be of interest to the House to know that I was not invited to that meeting. In fact, the
House may also like to know that the leader of the town council has dissociated himself from the circular sent out by the town clerk, a copy of which has been received by every hon. Member of this House.
I hope I have said enough to show the House that, in fact, the resolution passed by the Bolton Labour Party asking the House of Commons to re-insert Clause 87 in this Bill is not based on political prejudice but is based upon a sound reason, on the grounds that this procedure whereby the Clause was eliminated from the Bill was entirely undemocratic, unconstitutional and out of order. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Chairman of Ways and Means should deem it necessary to say what they have said, although I appreciate the special circumstances and the fact that there is a question of procedure involved here. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will not allow brewers or vested interests, in conjunction with the town clerk or any other official, to interfere with the democratic rights of the people of a borough, through their properly-elected representatives, to express their point of view, as they did at the original town council meeting, and to see that it is carried into effect.
Question put, "That the words. 'now considered,' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 79.

Division No. 131.]

AYES

[8.41 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Dobbie, W.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Drewe, C.

Hobson, C. R.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Awbery, S. S.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Houghton, A. L. N. D.

Bacon, Miss A.

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

Hurd, A.

Baird, J.

Erroll, F. J.

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

Baldwin, A. E.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

Barlow, Sir J.

Ewart, R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Battley, J. R.

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

Jennings, R.

Blenkinsop, A.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Johnston, Douglas

Bottomley, A. G.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Jones, Jack (Bolton)

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Keeling, E. H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Gage, C.

Kendall, W. D.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

King, E. M.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Gilzean, A.

Kinley, J.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Lavers, S.

Burden, T. W.

Grierson, E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Burke, W. A.

Grimston, R. V.

Linstead, H. N.

Butcher, H. W.

Guest, Dr. L, Haden

Logan, D. G.

Challen, C.

Han, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Lyne, A. W.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

McAdam, W.

Crowder, Capt, John E

Hardy, E. A.

McEntee, V. La T.

Daggar, G.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Deer, G.

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Spearman, A. C. M

MacLeod, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Spence, H. R.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Pearson, A.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Popplewell, E.

Studholme, H. G

Mainland, Comdr. J. W.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Sutcliffe, H.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Price, M. Philips

Sylvester, G. O.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Rayner, Brig. R.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Marples, A. E.

Reeves, J.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Renton, D.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Rhodes, H

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Robens, A.

Walker-Smith, D.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Maude, J. C.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

Mellor, Sir J

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Messer, F.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Wilkes, L.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Scollan, T.

Wilkins, W. A

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Sharp, Granville

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Mort, D. L.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Moyle, A.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Willis, E

MuIlan, Lt. C. H.

Simmons, C. J.

Woodburn, Rt Hon A

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Skinnard, F. W.

York, C.

Nicholson, G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Oldfield, W. H.

Snadden, W. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir frank

Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Haworth, J.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Attewell, H. C.

Holman, P.

Pritt, D. N.

Barton, C.

Hoy, J.

Randall, H. E

Beechman, N. A.

Hubbard, T.

Ranger, J

Bing, G. H. C

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Rankin, J.

Blyton, W. R.

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

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Bowen, R.

Jenkins, R. H.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

John, W.

Royle, C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Kenyon, C.

Skeffington, A. M.

Cobb, F. A.

Lang, G.

Skeffingion-Lodge, T. C.

Collins, V. J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Colman, Miss G. M.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Cooper, G.

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

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

Cove, W. G.

Mckinlay, A. S.

Sorensen, R. W.

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, F.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Dodds, N. N

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Edelman, M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Morley, R.

Walker, G. H.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mulvey, A.

Watkins, T. E

Fairhurst, F.

Naylor, T. E.

Weitzman, D.

Farthing, W. J.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Foot, M. M.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Paget, R. T.

Yates, V. F.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Hale, Leslie

Pargiter, G. A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Peart, T. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. John Lewis and Mr. Shackleton.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Amendments made to the Bill.
Bill to be read the Third time.

MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
Postponed proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.
Amendment: In page 15, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (b).—[Mr. Hare.]
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Hare: Perhaps I may now take the House back to the Amendment which I
1136
was moving. I feel that hon. Members may have learned a great deal about the procedure of the Bolton town council, and I feel that many of them may choose to leave the rather prosaic precincts of this House and attempt to qualify for future town councillorship vacancies on that august assembly.
I would like to recapitulate the few words with which I prefaced my speech by bringing the House back to the short explanation of why my hon. Friends and I have tabled this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment will be to delete sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (29) of the Schedule, which will have the effect of making it impossible for the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board to levy a rate on the constituent authorities who

1137
are within the area of that water board for the purpose of paying for any deficiency there may be in their operations. We consider that this is a matter of very considerable importance because, for the first time, a new principle in levying a water charge is brought into effect. I shall develop my theme later, but I would point out first of all that the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board is being formed under the arrangements laid down by the Water Act of 1945, and we have already the example of the Shropshire Water Board and the North Devon and Mid- and South-East Cheshire Board formed under this Act in which no such principle is, in fact, laid down. The real objection which we have to the procedure adopted under this Order is that it is entirely contrary to any ideas laid down in the parent Act, which is the Water Act, 1945. People who are not recipients of a water supply from this new Water Board may possibly have to pay contributions towards the deficiencies of the operations of that Board. It seems to us monstrously unfair that such a procedure should be allowed.
I think hon. Members would agree that water is a commodity which everyone needs and for which everyone expects to pay. That has always been the principle under which all water undertakings have so far worked, whether they have been local authority undertakings or private enterprise undertakings. I think hon. Members would agree that if they go to a butcher to buy some meat they expect to pay for that meat—[Interruption]—that is, as one hon. Member says, if they are fortunate enough to get anything worth paying for. If they have to go to a baker, from whom they can get unlimited supplies of bread, they expect to pay for that bread. Surely it is only reasonable that if somebody benefits by being fortunate enough to be supplied by a water corporation, then that person should expect to pay his fair share in proportion to the output of that corporation, and he should expect the proportion which he takes to be his financial responsibility. It would seem unfair that any persons who receive no benefit whatsoever from the operations of a water company should be expected in any way to contribute towards the operations of that company.
I think we should examine how this Clause will affect people living in this
1138
area. Unfortunately it is very difficult to assess the numbers of the people affected. The only way in which I can illustrate to the House how serious is this matter is by giving the proportion of the rateable value of those properties which will be served, so far as I can see, by this Water Board by comparison with the rateable value of those properties which will receive no benefit whatsoever from the operations of the Mid-Northamptonshire Water Board. The total rateable value of those properties receiving water in this new area will be £1,794,830—a very substantial rateable value, as I think hon. Members would agree. But the rateable value of those properties not receiving water from this Board will amount to £192,841. That is a very considerable proportion of the total figure and I think it does not require complicated mathematics for hon. Members to realise that more than 10 per cent, of the properties in this area will not be receiving any water from the operations of this Board.
I think one should also point out that it is quite clear that the hardship is likely to fall on certain sections of the population particularly, because within this area are the wealthy towns of Northampton, Kettering and Wellington, and it is obvious that the rateable value represented by those towns comes to a considerable proportion of the total of those properties which are to receive water from the scheme. In other words, it would appear—and I should like confirmation of this from the hon. Gentleman —that the people who are to suffer most, who are to have to pay something for nothing, are to be chiefly the rural inhabitants of the area. No farmer or farm worker who is not to benefit by the operations of the scheme will get much satisfaction if all he is to get in return for this levy which will be placed upon him is the right, when he goes to the market town on market day, of washing his hands or taking a drink of water. That will be a very poor compensation for the financial hardship which will be imposed on him.
Why is this new principle being imposed in this Bill? Why it is that for the first time, as far as I am informed, in England or Wales this principle of paying for water which one does not receive, is being proposed by the Minister of Health?
Mr. Donovan: It is not a new principle at all. Right or wrong, it is a very common one.
Mr. Hare: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that. I should like an example of that.
Mr. Donovan: I can give the hon. Gentleman one. If he will look at the Pontypridd and Rhondda Water Act, 1910, he will find that many inhabitants in the Rhondda area have had to pay for water for 40 years although they get none.
Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has produced one example. I have genuinely tried to find out if there are other examples.
Mr. Donovan: Does the hon. Gentleman want another?
Mr. Hare: Perhaps, the hon. and learned Gentleman will give all he can in one go.
Mr. Donovan: If the hon. Gentleman will study the Water Acts which cover the City of Glasgow, he will find a similar example.
Mr. Hare: I am trying not to involve Scotland in my discussions. I did make it quite clear that my remarks referred entirely to England and Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us one example of an injustice which has lasted for 40 years in Wales. I have no pleasure in that injustice. I hope that we do not want to increase injustice by imposing a similar injustice on the inhabitants of mid-Northamptonshire. That is the case to which I am asking the House to address itself.
Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member regard it as an injustice if a bachelor —let me make it quite clear that I mean a childless bachelor—had to pay an education rate?
Mr. Hare: That may be a very clever interjection, but I fail to see that it bears any relation whatsoever to the argument I am trying to put forward. I maintain —and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) apparently disagrees with me—that it is an injustice that any man in this country—I mean England and Wales, with great respect to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who is sitting in
1140
front of me—that any Englishman or Welshman should have to pay for water which he does not receive. That is my case. It may not be agreed with, but that is the reason why I am speaking on this Amendment. I was asking the House whether it could think what possible justification there was for this admittedly Unjust procedure. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) mentioned the case of a town in Wales, and admitted that it was an injustice that those people had been asked to pay for water which they had not received.
9.0 p.m.
The reason that the Minister has put the proposal forward in this Bill is very easy to see. He has in fact been quite frank about the reason, which he has published in a letter to all the authorities who are concerned with this Board. I will not detain the House for long, but I wish to read an excerpt from the letter written by the Minister, dated 6th August, 1948, announcing his decision after the inquiry, when he wrote to the affected authorities:
"The Minister has had some doubt whether he would be justified in agreeing that the Joint Board should not be empowered to charge a water rate for domestic supplies. He feels, however, that the proposals made to him in this respect will simplify administration and produce substantial economies in the costs of collection."
That is the reason why this injustice is to be perpetuated upon great numbers of citizens in the mid-Northamptonshire Water Board area. The reason is administrative convenience.
We are having too many examples in this present Parliament of the way in which administrative convenience is allowed to override all other considerations. The way in which in recent legislation the convenience and the rights of the private individual are completely overridden by this desire on the part of legislators in this House to make things happy and simple for themselves and for those who work under them is, I think, quite monstrous. I feel that our primary duty in this House is to sacrifice our own convenience and the convenience of our administrators in order to give a better and more convenient service, and a fairer service, to the individual citizens of this country. That is the basis on which we move our Amendment.

1141
When one looks into the past and considers that in this House, John Hampden stood up against the right of King Charles I to collect ship money, one realises that the Minister of Health has here a far less good cause than King Charles had for collecting ship money. After all, the English towns which objected to that levy to which they had not been accustomed did, at any rate, get the benefit of a defence force in the form of the Navy to defend our shores. They at least got some indirect benefit. In the same way, when we lost our American Colonies on the cry of "taxation without representation," even there the American Colonists had less cause to "grouse" than the inhabitants of Northamptonshire because they did get some benefit from this country for the taxes which they were asked to pay to King George III. I feel that this is an extreme example of taxation without benefit, and that the Minister of Health has no right to introduce such a principle into this House of Commons.
Brigadier Thorp: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member, in moving the Amendment, has raised the general question of whether the Water Board should have the right under this Bill of securing its revenue by a precept upon the general rate of these constituent authorities, and he has not dealt purely with the deficiency charge question which is, of course, the subject of the subsection which we are at the moment discussing. I appreciate the point that he was wishing to raise this general question. I understand that so far as deficiencies are concerned, this is not an unusual practice in relation to joint boards, but I would agree with him that this is a more novel practice in relation to the precept upon constituent authorities for their general expenses. In this case the majority of the constituent authorities decided that it was in the interests of the area that a water rate should not be charged after 31st March, 1954, but that the expenses of the Board, after taking account of revenue, should be met by precepts upon the constituent authorities.
As the hon. Member mentioned, one factor which made us feel that this was a reasonable experiment to make was the
1142
reason given in the letter from my right hon. Friend which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted. I am a little surprised to find that on this issue the considerable saving in administration, not only in expenditure but in actual terms of labour, is something the hon. Gentleman disregards rather rightly. We shall certainly remember that in other discussions we may have in this House. The machinery of rate collection is very much simplified in this way, and it is estimated that a saving of some £8,000 a year on staff can be effected. That is a factor we must keep in mind, although I should be the last to say that it should be the sole determining reason.
Above all, this is a matter in which we think the view of the constituent authorities, which has been taken, should be expressed in the Bill. What we have therefore done is to ensure that this Measure, which they desire themselves to operate, should be given a chance of operating. It is novel, and it is something of an experiment; but we think it is justified both in relation to the saving of expenses involved and because of the desire of the authorities concerned. If it should prove to be unworkable, or if it is proved unduly to penalise large bodies of ratepayers, we could review the matter in the light of the experience we gain in this case. In our view—and it is the view of the majority of the constituent authorities concerned—there will not be a severe penalisation of the ratepayers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
There are, of course, many other services where this is a fairly common practice. For example, in relation to sewage there are very many cases in which payments are made, although at a particular time no service is actually provided. In view of the undoubted benefits that this order will bring to the agricultural community as a whole, we do not think it is unreasonable. It is also of some interest to note that there was no petition to alter this provision to the joint committee by the authorities concerned. It is true that some of the authorities involved already make no charges for water supply, but meet their deficiencies from general rate funds. For those reasons, and with the assurance that we will examine the working of this procedure, we think this is something to which the House should give its support, remembering that it is the desire of the authorities concerned to operate this scheme, and that it is our

1143
desire to see that it shall operate, as far as possible, without any undue hardship to those concerned.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Parliamentary Secretary treats this matter a little lightly. For instance, he says it was carried by the water board. It was, of course, decided by the urban areas in the teeth of very strong protests by the rural areas.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not say by the board, but desired by a majority of the constituent authorities. I was careful not to give a wrong impression.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That makes it clearer. It was desired by a majority of the constituent authorities. Naturally those who are going to pay and get water will welcome it, because in addition they are going to be helped by charges made by people who are going to pay but are not going to get water. Those who will pay and get water happen to be in a majority and voted for it, and it was considerations such as those which made the Minister doubtful whether the thing should be embarked on at all. The Minister cannot pray in aid that the majority of the constituent authorities supported him unless he is able to break it down and show exactly the relations between the authorities who are not going to get any water although they will pay for it and the authorities who will get water and will pay for it.
The next point is whether the rural areas were justified in objecting. A heavy charge is to be made upon them. The suggestion is that the Minister may say that it was a matter of no very great importance, but I do not think he will deny that the water rate in other areas, such as East Shropshire, will be something of the order of 2s. 6d. to 3s. in the £. A rate of 3s. in the £ is not a rate which any section of the community is going to regard with lightness, and particularly when they are told that it is being adopted as a kind of experiment. They are entitled to say that a gain of £8,000 in rate collection is going to be outweighed by a considerable figure for the charge.
The Minister did not give us the figure, but perhaps he could give us the amount of money which is to be raised from those who will receive no benefit. That is germane to the discussion which we
1144
are having. The levy is one of the order of 2s. 6d. or 3s. in the £, but what amount is this levy going to raise from those who are to receive no benefit from it? The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) said there were many precedents for it, and actually had the temerity to quote a Scottish example. He may not be keeping himself up-to-date on Scottish practices, because the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are glad to have with us, will remember that this matter was, in fact, the subject of a Government decision not so very long ago. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who is consulting literature and who is no doubt desirous of intervening in the Debate, has already used the hoary example which he brings up on all these occasions of a bachelor paying rates—
Mr. Rankin: A childless bachelor.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am taking a high moral tone. I mean a childless bachelor, but I wish to keep the tone of the Debate high. The difficulty of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who sat through many of the Debates on the Scottish Bill, will be to get rid of the very specific declarations which were made on that occasion. On 9th November the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"We have taken the view that a domestic water rate should not be levied on any persons other than those who actually have a supply laid on by the water authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1469.]
That is a very striking statement of Government policy, and it is paralleled by every statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of the Debate.
9.15 p.m.
It is true that a proportion of the rate was levied as a public water rate and a proportion as a domestic rate. Of course, the proportion levied as a public water rate was trivially small compared with what is being discussed here. It was something from 2d. to 6d. in the pound, a proportion going up to 33⅓ per cent. and going down as low as 20 per cent. This limited fraction was charged as a public water rate. The domestic water rate was levied on the principle so admirably enunciated in the previous Debate, namely, that no rate should be levied for domestic water except on the

1145
people who were actually in receipt of such a water supply.
In the circumstances, it seems a very unjust experiment to try upon the rural inhabitants who are to come under the sway of this water board. The Minister will need to explain why, first of all, this striking departure has been made from the principles so clearly enunciated by the Government as affecting a whole country in the case of a Water Bill—The Water (Scotland) Bill—passed through this House as recently as November of last year and which, by a strange coincidence, is coming down for consideration from another place this very night. It is true that we have been a little delayed by the Bolton Wanderers. but that delay is now over.
"Home is the sailor, home from the sea. And the wanderer home from the hill."
[Interruption.] I know that "hunter." is the correct word. We are all aware of what was written by our great Scottish poet Robert Louis Stevenson, but I was merely paraphrasing his lines because of their application to the Debate which we previously had tonight.
If we are going this very night to pass through its concluding stages a Bill under which nobody is to be charged, on the declaration of the Government, a domestic rate for water that he does not receive, it is strange that we should preface it by passing a Clause which says that the rural areas of Northampton in the purview of this board covering 10 per cent. or more of the board's rateable value, are to suffer a charge which I estimate to be something of the order of from 2s. or 3s. 6d. in the £, for water to which they are not connected and are not likely to be connected, so far as one can see, for a very long time. That is a striking injustice, and one to which the Parliamentary Secretary should give further attention before he commends the Clause to the House.
On this occasion the Minister of Health almost came down on the right side. In his own letter he said that he had had serious qualms and doubts. That is very unusual. We can judge the strength of our case by this very unusual impact which it has had upon the mind of the Minister of Health. He is not a man who is usually given to doubts and qualms and still less to writing official letters to official bodies stating that he is
1146
suffering from them. When the Minister of Health quavers and rocks, the rest of us can conclude that the arguments are supremely convincing. We ask the House an unusual thing: let it help the Minister of Health to make up his mind. Let it bring the Minister of Health down on the side of justice and reason and, for the sake of precedent, on the same side as that to which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to address their arguments in a very short time when the Bill covering Scotland is brought under consideration and passes its final stages, with Amendments incorporated from another place. The case for the proposals put forward from this side is really one which the Minister might well concede on this occasion.
Mr. Mitchison: At this hour of the night no one would wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two. The answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, briefly, that it is the duty of this joint water board to supply water throughout the whole area, that the rural places to which he refers have been without water for a long time notwithstanding any efforts by the local authorities, and they will only get water through the operations of this joint water board and the works which it is proposed to erect at Pitsford and elsewhere.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not arguing about those who are to get water but those who are not to get it. Will the hon. and learned Member address his arguments to that point?
Mr. Mitchison: What I understood we were arguing about was whether those who are not now getting the water should pay for it.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Those who are not getting water now and are not to get water for any length of time that can reasonably be foreseen.
Mr. Blenkinsop: We are discussing the position as from 1954.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes.
Mr. Mitchison: The whole point of the matter, as I understand it, seems to me to be that one of the main purposes of constituting this joint water board is that under the existing local authority machinery, it has, for good or ill, proved impossible to supply water to some parts of the county. Some works are now

1147
specifically contemplated, and others will no doubt be carried out later. The general duty of this joint water board is defined in the order. It is to supply water in the area.
I wish to make only one general observation. I do not see how bodies supplying water over even so comparatively small an area as a county will be able to function properly if the financial contributions are to be limited to those persons who are now getting water, or, if I may take the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, are immediately and foreseeably to get water. The point is surely whether the provision of water is to be regarded like the provision of school facilities, the disposal of sewage and many other public services. It must be regarded as one thing or another—it must be regarded either as a business of selling water or as a public service.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the declaration by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Mitchison: Parliamentary courtesy would forbid me to make any observations on what the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary may have said, and Parliamentary conventions would prevent me from doing what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be anxious to do, that is, to debate with regard to Mid-Northamptonshire, some Scottish Bill or other which is shortly to come before the House. I prefer for this purpose to confine myself to the county water supply with which we are immediately concerned.
I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and hon. Members opposite whether there are not two ways of looking at this matter. One was put by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), who seems to me to suggest that the provision of water is ultimately a matter of selling. We on this side of the House cannot accept that view. It seems to us, and I think I speak for everyone on this side of the House, to be a public service, and at present it is to be a public service within the limits of this joint water board. Our view is that for public services of that character a general contribution must be made by everyone in the area, since it is
1148
otherwise impossible to provide them with full efficiency.
It seems to me that the point which we are here considering in relation to Northamptonshire is bound to arise sooner or later over a wider area. One of the difficulties of water supply in this country, just as it has been the difficulty in the area covered by this water board, has been its variety of charges for a similar public service. Sooner or later water rates and charges all over the country will have to be equalised. They can only be equalised on the basis of a national water service for which I regard this order, excellent though it is so far as it goes, as only a temporary substitute.
Captain Marsden: Obviously, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has his mind fixed on a nationalised water service. When that moment comes, if I am in this House, I am not certain what I shall do about it. But now I am talking about the present situation as it is put before us, and my sympathies are very much with those men and women living in certain parts in this area who can get no water from a public supply and have not the slightest chance of getting it. Evidence given by expert witnesses, of which I have a copy and to which I can refer, shows there is no chance of them getting it in the future. Even though they do not pay a water rate, if there is a deficiency in the water rate they have to pay that deficiency through the general rate. Every single one of them has to have a water supply of some sort. Many of them have wells and pumps which require a certain amount of attention, which has to be paid for. I think it is unfair that these people in rather remote places should pay a full water rate.
The Minister himself is not at all happy about it, and if he does not like a thing we can be perfectly certain that he is very dubious indeed about it. I hate to see these things brought up as party questions. They are not. It is a question of fair play for the individual. Many hon. Members refer to education and sewage and then say, "And lots of other things." Then they think for a moment, but cannot think of anything else. After all if we take the question of a childless bachelor, the man with the biggest family was once a childless bachelor himself, so one never knows what is before

1149
one. I can only repeat that this is in a general sense fair play to the individual, and I think it is most unfortunate that by legislation we should try to force people who do not get water, and have not the slightest chance of getting water, to pay a full rate.
Mr. Rankin: I wish to put one point to the House because the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden), who was my colleague on the Committee, seemed to try to indicate to the House that all the experts who appeared before us subscribed more or less to the point of view put by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I wish to quote
the reply of one expert in response to a question put by me and detailed on page 115 of the report presented by the Committee. The question I put was:
"But they are reaping the benefits that come from the existing water supply even though they may not be getting it directly?"
That referred to the people to whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. The answer of the expert witness was:
"That is a view to which I subscribe."
Question put, "That sub-paragraph (b) stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes. 165; Noes, 64.

Division No. 132.]

AYES

[9.32 p.m.

Albu, A. H.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pargiter, G. A.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Hardy, E. A.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hastings, Dr Somerville

Attewell, H. C.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pearson, A.

Awbery, S. S.

Holman, P.

Peart, T. F.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

Popplewell, E.

Bacon, Miss A

Houghton, A L N D

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Baird, J.

Hoy, J.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Barton, C.

Hubbard, T.

Price, M. Philips

Battley, J. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Proctor, W. T.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Randall, H. E.

Blyton, W. R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ranger, J.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

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

Rankin, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reeves, J.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jenkins, R H.

Robens, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

John, W.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Burden, T. W.

Johnston, Douglas

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Callaghan, James

Kenyon., C.

Royle, C.

Carmichael, James

King, E. M.

Scollan, T.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Cobb, F. A.

kinley, J.

Sharp, Granville

Collick, P.

Lang, G.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Collindridge, F.

Lavers, S.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Collins, V. J.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Simmons, C. J.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Logan, D. G.

Skinnard, F. W.

Cooper, G.

Lynn, A. W.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Corlett, Dr. J.

McAdam, W.

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

Daggar, G.

McEntee, V. La T

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McGhee, H. G

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Deer, G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Steele, T.

Delargy, H. J.

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Diamond, J.

McKinley, A. S.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Dobbie, W.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Dodds, N. N

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Donovan, T.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Tolley, L.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Walker, G. H

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mashers, Rt. Hon. George

Watkins, T. E.

Ewart, R.

Messer, F.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Editib'gh, E.)

Fairhurst, F

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Farthing, W. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Wilkes, L.

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

Morgan, Or. H. B.

Wilkins, W. A.

Foot, M. M.

Morley, R.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Mort, D. L.

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

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Moyle, A.

Willis, E.

Gilzean, A.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Grierson, E.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Yates, V. F.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Oldfied, W. H.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Paget, R. T.

Guy, W. H.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hale, Leslie

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Palmer, A. M. F.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Nicholson, G.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hurd, A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Piekthorn, K.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Rayner, Brig. R.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jennings., R.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. W

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Scott, Lord W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Snadden, W. M.

Challen, C.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Spearman, A. C. M.

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

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

Spence, H. R.

Crowder, Capt. John E

Linstead, H. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

Drewe, C.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Manningham-Butler, R. E.

Thorneycroft" G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Erroll, F. J.

Marples, A. E.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Touche, G. C.

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Gage, C.

Marshall,, S. H. (Sutton)

Walker-Smith, D.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maude, J. C.

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

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Mellor, Sir

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Grimston, R. V.

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

York, C.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

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

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 29, leave out: "before the commencement of each," and insert:
"as soon as may be after the appointed day and before the commencement of the second and each subsequent."—[Mr. Blenkinsop]
Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 19, line 4, at the end, to insert:
"and shall be subject to audit by a district auditor."
This is one of the Amendments which are consequential upon the action of the Joint Committee in amending the Minister's order on the question whether the accounts of the Board shall be subject to district audit or professional audit. The Minister's order, which is in accordance with his usual practice, provided that the accounts shall be subject to audit by the district auditor. The Government consider that the alteration which was made by the Joint Committee is undesirable and not in accordance with the general past policy in regard to the auditing of the accounts of joint boards of local authorities which are formed by order of the Minister.
In fact, we are operating here under the provisions of Section 293 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which enables the Minister, in the order forming the joint hoard, to apply to the board any provisions of the Act, including the provision requiring the accounts to be subject to audit by the district auditor.
It has been clearly understood that the general rule shall be that a district audit shall be applied, for the accounts of one or more of the councils concerned are already subject to district
1152
audit. In fact, the accounts in the great majority of the constituent authorities in this instance, are already subject to district audit. Therefore, in the Government's opinion, it would be wrong to institute a new system of audit for the Board's accounts. It is further of some interest that none of the constituent authorities, who are the bodies responsible for providing the Board's funds, objected to district audit either at the local inquiry or when the Order was before the Joint Committee. In this case, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is following the general practice and our interpretation of our duties of the Local Government Act, 1933.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to indicate the great importance of this Amendment, which is one of the two Amendments causing this discussion to take place in this House today. It is an Amendment tabled by the Minister of Health who has not as yet graced us with his presence, and which he obviously regards as of vital importance. It may be of even greater importance than the other Amendment which we discussed previously, which reserves the right to the Ministers of Agriculture and Health to express an opinion on the state of the River Nene.
What exactly is it that we are now being asked to do, this matter of great importance? Instead of providing, as the Bill now does, that the Water Board shall have the option of employing either district auditors or professional auditors, we are asked to take away that option

1153
and to force them to employ district auditors. I should have thought that not even the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Health could have suggested that this Amendment went to the root of this Order. Therefore, I should not have thought it possible, even for them, to suggest that this Amendment did not constitute a serious breach of the pledge given to this House in 1945 by the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. Blenkinsop: If I may be allowed to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would point out that we regard it of very real importance to carry out the duties imposed upon us by the House under the provisions of the Act to which I referred.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman did not consider it of real importance; he may consider it of real importance, but he must have regard to the terms of the pledge which limited the action to be taken by the Government in a matter of this sort to things which went to the root of ministerial orders, and no one can suggest that this Amendment, which seeks to reverse a decision come to by Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which went into the matter with great care and heard a mass of evidence, goes to the root of the creation of a water board. It is an absolutely clear breach of this pledge.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman did not indicate that there is a precedent for joint water boards having this option. Surely, he must have made inquiry in this matter. I ask him to deny that the North Devon and the Mid and South-east Cheshire Water Boards, established quite recently have the right, if they so desire, of a professional auditor as opposed to district auditors. If this matter is of such great importance, why was not action taken by the Minister? There are precedents for the water boards having this option. Why is it that after spending two short days this week giving limited consideration to the Iron and Steel Bill, subject to the guillotine, we should thereby make room for the discussion of this "most important" matter of principle whether a water board should have the option of employing professional auditors? It really is wasting the time of the House
1154
that the right hon. Gentleman should make up his mind to reverse the decision of a joint committee and take up the time of this House in considering a point of this nature.
We were told, if I may refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th November, 1945, that these orders of joint committees would not be challenged unless
"national policy is involved, or is likely to be imperilled or embarrassed." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415. c. 2183.]
I fail to see how anyone supporting this Amendment can maintain that giving this choice to the water board in any way affects or imperils national policy.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to say that the constituent authorities of the water board have the slightest objection to the order in its present form giving them the power of choice, and I think he would also find if he made inquiry that they do not care two hoots whether this Amendemment is made or not. He has got no support from them for this Amendment. It may be that there are various joint boards which have a district auditor, but that is no reason for saying that this option should be taken away from a joint board, which is in the nature of a public utility company, and that they should be limited to the employment of district auditors.
Mr. Diamond: I rise to oppose this Amendment. I want to make it quite clear, as this Amendment is concerned with the option as between district and professional auditors, that I myself am a professional auditor and, therefore, am most directly interested in this matter. Indeed, although I have not the slightest possibility or hope or expectation of ever becoming the auditor of a joint water board, I nevertheless regard the interest of any accountant who speaks on this matter as being so direct that it would be preferable that he should not vote in any Division which might arise, and I myself will certainly impose that discipline upon myself. I hope, however, that it will not be necessary to have a Division on this matter, because I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider it, in view of the facts which have been put before him and which I hope to underline and make a little more full.

1155
There are two aspects of this matter: first, the merits of the case, and secondly, what one might call the question of constitutional procedure and the pledge to which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has referred. Let us deal first with the substance of the case. It is quite clear to the House at this stage that what we are concerned with is whether the joint water board should have the right to decide whether its accounts should be audited by a district auditor—that is to say, a civil servant, a member of the Ministry of Health—or whether they should be audited by an independent professional auditor such as a chartered accountant or a member of one of the associated bodies who are petitioners in this matter.
Perhaps I may give the information with regard to the number of professional auditors who are engaged at the moment on audits of local authorities. I am told that a survey was made in 1946 by the Association of Municipal Corporations and it appeared, from that survey, that the figures for the county boroughs were as follows: 69 adopted the professional audit, as against nine who adopted the district audit. Apparently that figure has improved since then, because the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee showed that 73 out of a total of 83 county boroughs, including, for example, Manchester—in which is my constituency—and Liverpool, have adopted the system of the professional audit. So far as the boroughs are concerned, professional audit is adopted in 134 cases and district audit in 103 cases.
It is quite clear, therefore, that the argument is not so strong in the case of the boroughs as it is in the case of the county boroughs, where the figures were 69 to nine and are now 73 out of a total of 83. Perhaps I may make one further point.
Mr. T. J. Brooks: What are the figures for the county councils?
Mr. Diamond: I have not the figures for the county councils, but if my hon. Friend has them no doubt he will tell the House. There is no reason at all why all information should not be placed before the House and the House be given an opportunity of reaching an appropriate conclusion. In addition to the profes-
1156
sional audit and the district audit, there is a system known as the elective audit, which goes deep into the roots of the history of this country and which, I believe, received constitutional blessing more than 100 years ago. The elective audit is a system whereby the local authority elects its auditors and it is, indeed, very germane to what we are now discussing, because the effect of this Amendment is to deny to a body composed of local authorities—a joint water board—the freedom to elect its auditors. Indeed, in those elective audits, many auditors are professional auditors chosen where that system is followed.
It will be quite clear that many authorities take the view that a professional audit is a satisfactory method of carrying out the audit of its accounts. I do not want to do more than suggest that a professional audit is quite as suitable a method of auditing the accounts of a local authority or a water board as any other system of audit. If it were suggested to me that a district audit was a more appropriate method, I should, of course, feel compelled to produce arguments to show why, in my opinion, the professional audit was the more suitable.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry referred to a case with which, unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary had not time to deal. I want to say here that I sympathise with the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary to make his speeches as short as possible, because by now he must be feeling very tired and presumably very hungry, having spent so much time on that bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Minister?"1 The hon. and learned Member referred to the case of the Cheshire Water Board, but I do not think that point was made sufficiently strongly because the Cheshire Water Board was a case where the Minister, acting on the same advice as that which he has adopted on this occasion, preferred the district audit and suggested it to this House, but this House disagreed with that suggestion and came to the conclusion that the professional audit was preferable in that case. The point I would underline is that in that case there was not even an option; it was a question of pinning the water board down to a district audit; but the House decided that if it were to be pinned down to any audit it would be better for it to be pinned down to a professional audit.

1157
Having, I hope, satisfied the House that the professional audit is a proper and the reasonable method of carrying out this job, I now come to the question of the new constituent local authorities which have been combined in the joint water board which is under consideration, and we find in the evidence that 50 per cent. of the income which will come into the joint water board is subject at the moment to professional audit.
Mr. David Jones: Will my hon. Friend indicate how many of the authorities contribute that 50 per cent.? This may give a false impression. He will find that the bulk of the authorities are subject to district audit.
Mr. Diamond: I will give any information any hon. Member wants that I have in my possession. The last thing I want to do is to convey an unfair impression. I thought it was a fair consideration to have regard to the income of the authority. There are 17 local authorities involved, of all sizes. It is very difficult to compare a small rural district council with a large county borough, and I thought a fair method of comparison was that of income, because £1 to one local authority is the same as £1 to another. Of the income coming in to the joint water board, 53 per cent. is at present subject to professional audit, arising in two out of the 17 authorities, if my hon. Friend wants to know. They are, of course, as the figures indicate, a substantial two, and between them contribute more than 50 per cent. of the income.
Mr. Donovan: Which are they?
Mr. Diamond: Perhaps I can give that information a little later on. I am making the point that it would be unreasonable to deny to this joint board, whose income as to more than a half has previously been subject to professional audit, the right to decide for itself in a matter such as this. I have no doubt that all of us in this House feel that those responsible for conducting an organisation of this size, which represents a very considerable accumulation of capital, and which will have a very large income, are really capable of deciding whether an auditor does his job satisfactorily or not.
Of course, it will not be lost sight of that what we are considering is something which is more in the nature of a
1158
public utility company, a trading organisation, than a local authority. Therefore, the argument is reinforced, that although professional auditors may not have the full experience of the district auditors of purely municipal matters, of trading matters, and matters of public utility companies—as the House has shown by the way it has acted with regard to nationalised industries—the professional auditors would by no means be prepared to say they were lacking experience in any degree at all.
A further point which, I think, is not entirely without relevance, as Scotland has been mentioned many times today, and as we are about to sail into Scottish waters, is that in Scotland all local authority accounts are audited by professional auditors. I should like, as an accountant, to pay my tribute to the Scottish accountants, each one of whom is worth at least one and a half English accountants. I hope I have given reasons why I think that this is a very reasonable and moderate case we are bringing forward, a very reasonable thing for which we are asking—that at least, the right to choose be left with the Joint Board.
10.0 p.m.
Let me refer now to the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary has given for feeling himself bound to go on some system that he calls the normal system, and which is contained, he alleges, in Section 293 of the Local Government Act, 1933. I have read the Section very carefully, as I am sure my hon. Friend has, but I cannot accept his conclusions, and I hope that when he replies he will put me right. The first point to be made is the point which my hon. Friend made, in all fairness, that this Section which provides for the appointment of a district auditor or a professional auditor, is purely a permissive one, so that the Minister can do exactly what he wants and can adopt one course or the other.
The second point is the quite simple one that this Section has no relevance whatsoever to what we are considering. The second of the provisions under subsection (1) states that the provisional order may apply to the joint board, provided that
"the audit of accounts by district auditors shall not be applied to a joint board…if the whole of the constituent local authorities are councils of boroughs…"

1159
That is not the case we are dealing with. The whole of the constituent local authorities of the joint water board with which we are concerned are not councils of boroughs. They are boroughs of every type, and this Section, therefore, has no relevance whatsoever. I put this forcefully, but I hope courteously, to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the case which we are considering. The third point which I would make is that there is nothing in the Section whatever to prevent the application of Section 239, which provides for the alternative, so far as this particular water board is concerned.
I apologise for delaying the House some time on this matter, and I am very grateful to hon. Members for listening to me with as much courtesy as I hope I listen to them on other occasions. Having put to the House the reasons why the right to choose should remain with the local authority—and I do not think the right to choose is a right we should easily forego—may I now deal with the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with when speaking first for the Opposition with regard to the pledge which he said was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood). I would not accept for one second that there is any question here of a pledge being broken. I have already referred to the subject of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on that occasion. If those who are interested will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th November, 1945, they will see that my right hon. Friend said with great clarity:
"…It must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, to advise Parliament whether a particular issue raised on a Ministerial order is or is not one of policy on which the Government may feel bound to use their Parliamentary resources in support of their point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2181.]
I am sure that we would all accept that there is this doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. Any Minister and, I am sure, any Government would be put in a very severe difficulty if they did not have the right to dictate, or attempt to put forward, the point of view which they thought ought to be adopted, if they were to be charged with the responsibilities that might result. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that
1160
"The Minister of Health may feel himself obliged, in the interest of public health, to make orders which are considered by some water undertakers to be detrimental to their interests, whether those undertakers be private companies or local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415. c. 2183.]
There was, in fact, a general reference and a specific reference. I do not think, therefore, that anyone can feel that he has any complaint at this matter being raised. Having said that, it must be pointed out that the Minister, in putting forward this Amendment, is going against a decision of a Joint Committee of both Houses. Surely he would not adopt a course like that unless he had the gravest doubts and could produce substantial evidence to this House to show that that Committee had not got all the evidence before them when they came to their conclusion, or that they were quite wrong or misguided in coming to that decision. I think the House will 'agree that we have not been given any new evidence, and that we have not been given any facts to justify the Minister's view that the decision of this Joint Committee was ill-founded.
I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind that we shall be led into a very difficult position if, every time this procedure is adopted, all the Minister has to do is to come forward and put minor Amendments before the House. While I say he is entitled to do that, I think that it will lead to very great difficulty. For example, what attitude will private interests and local authorities take up? They may say, "Why on earth should we spend our money"—and indeed the money of Parliament—"in long sittings"—and this case has involved long sittings—"of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter when even minor points have to be reconsidered in the whole House?" We might as well forgo all that and let the matter be discussed by the whole House in the first place, which would of course upset one of the reasons for which I understand this new procedure was introduced in 1945.
I therefore say it is reasonable to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are not very adequate and weighty reasons present in this case which should lead him to put forward an Amendment which is against the decision of a Joint Committee. I am tempted to wonder—

1161
and these are my final remarks on the subject—what are the real reasons which have prevailed upon my hon. Friends to come to this new conclusion. I have disclosed my interest in this matter; I have made it quite clear that this is a question of a professional auditor versus a district auditor. I ask the Minister: Has he disclosed his interest in this matter? Has he made it perfectly clear that there must be many members of the district audit staff who now find themselves, shall we say, with less to do than they did before this Government took office? As a result of the many nationalisation Acts, which all of us on this side accept, involving gas, transport and electricity, there are undoubtedly many cases where professional auditors and district auditors alike have found themselves without the job they previously did. That is one of the economies, which has resulted.
I do not want to get into controversial waters I merely want to make clear that, unless some very good and powerful reasons are put before us why this right to choose is denied to a combination of local authorities, we must look to some of the less powerful and less good reasons. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be able to disabuse my mind, and will on further consideration decide that the best thing to do would be to allow local authorities the right to choose—a right which every municipal corporation and every free man in this country enjoys.
Mr. Jennings: I rise to oppose this Amendment. Like the hon. Member for the Blackley Division of Manchester (Mr. Diamond), I have to disclose my interest, which is that of a professional chartered accountant. Also like the hon. Member, I have very little likelihood of being appointed as professional auditor to a water undertaking, so that my interest is very remote. He said that he would not oppose the Government in the Lobby on this matter. I, unlike him in this respect, feel that, even though my interest is so remote I shall be obliged to go into the Lobby against this Amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary called in aid Section 293 of the 1933 Act. It is a great pity that the Minister of Health is not here to defend this Amendment. He has sent his Parliamentary Secretary to quote in aid of the Amendment this par-
1162
ticular Section. On page 178 of the Minutes of Evidence of this Joint Committee this very point was raised. Counsel for the Minister was being questioned on this particular Section that has been quoted. It states:
"We know here that, out of sixteen authorities, district audit would apply to thirteen, and has been applied to a fourteenth by the choice of the Borough of Kettering. Of course, the proviso does not strictly apply here because not all the authorities are boroughs."
Counsel for the Minister replied: "That is so." If counsel for the Minister before that Joint Committee admitted that that Section did not strictly apply surely it is treating the House with some discourtesy for the Minister to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to support this Amendment by quoting a Section of an Act which his counsel in Committee said did not strictly apply. There must be some motive for not giving a choice to this authority.
I feel there must be some other motive why the choice has not been given to the local authority for the appointment of a professional audit. Recently gas, electricity, transport and so on have all been given the power to have professional audits, and it seems to me that there is no reason at all why the local authority should not have the choice of deciding for itself which kind of audit it will have. It is not for me as a chartered accountant to quote the standing of any of the professional bodies like the Institute or the Society or the many other authorities in this country.
Mr. Mathers: It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Member would say something about the qualifications of those between whom we are asked to decide. Have they all equal qualifications or is it not the case that the district auditor requires to be even more fully qualified than the ordinary professional auditor? Is it not another consideration that the district auditor is more likely to be completely impartial in doing his work?
Mr. Jennings: I could not let that pass. I had purposely refrained from criticising the district auditor, because I had thought that would be the wrong thing to do, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion to the effect that district auditors are better qualified to audit these accounts and without any hesitation I must refute that suggestion. It is not for me to criticise the district auditor.

1163
The best way of deciding the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman is to realise how little the district auditor has been brought into the picture in recent Acts. It seems to me that their duties are getting less and less, and it is not that the Minister wants to give them some more work or keep them in existence, because they are being deprived of these audits in the various nationalised undertakings and under local authorities. Many local authorities have taken the choice that was given to them and have appointed professional auditors in preference to district auditors.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member appears to have misunderstood my question, which was an inquiry, a request for information. I was asking about the relative qualifications.
Mr. Jennings: It would be most improper of me to reply to that question. As an interested party and a member of a professional body it would be wrong for me to compare qualifications one against the other. If the hon. Member is right that the district auditor is better qualified, then keep him in the Bill as he is, but put the professional auditor in as well. The wisdom of the authority making the choice will be shown in the way it chooses. If, in their opinion, the district auditor is better qualified I take it that the district auditor will be appointed to audit the accounts. If he is not, then the professional accountant will be appointed.
I must ask the hon. Member not to press me to comparisons with regard to professional qualifications because on a matter like this comparisons might be a little odious from one professional man to another. I prefer not to make the comparison. The comparison will have to made by the local authority which is making the appointment. If the choice is between one and the other, the local authority can decide the right thing to do. It must be wrong for the Minister to force upon an authority one type of auditor if the authority feel it would like a different system of audit which might be a better way of doing the job. Questions of comparison do not enter into it.
The plain issue is that we have had an advancement through recent Acts of
1164
Parliament, such as the 1933 Act, giving local authorities the power to appoint professional auditors. With nationalised industries we are getting the power given for professional auditors to be appointed. At this late stage, does the Minister propose to take away from local authorities the choice, in spite of the fact that the Joint Committee after hearing all the evidence that the Minister could put forward in support of this matter refused to accept it and decided that the choice of auditor should be the method employed? Here is an Amendment brought forward by the Minister at the last stage. He has not the courtesy to come forward and defend the matter. It was suggested a little earlier by the Home Secretary, when the Minister's absence was questioned, that perhaps it was a good thing that the Minister was not present, because we might get off more lightly. Those are not the Home Secretary's exact words but that was the inference from them. I say that it is a pity that he is not here because we could give him what he is entitled to. Unfortunately we cannot do him justice in that respect. We cannot do the right hon. Gentleman justice if he is not here. He should have been here.
This is a matter of importance and concern to every Member of every party. The right should be given here to the authority to make their choice, as we have been providing in Acts of Parliament for some years. This Amendment is depriving this authority of that choice, and a far better case should be made out for taking away this right than that put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, which was no case at all. The Ministry's own counsel said before the Committee that the particular Section did not really apply. I think it was misleading the House, not purposely but innocently, to ask the House to accept this Amendment. If the Parliamentary Secretary reads those minutes again he will appreciate that his own Department's counsel pleading the case admited that that particular Section did not apply. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will have to offer a much better case than the one which he has brought forward in support of this Amendment. I believe that Members on all sides of the House who believe in justice should come into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: The case for the option between the professional auditor and the district auditor has had two strong advocates on the professional side, both of whom have, of course, declared their interest. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) has somewhat over-laboured the position of the Joint Committee on this matter. I want to make it perfectly clear to him that in the Joint Committee—I hope I am revealing no secrets that should not be revealed—there was a long discussion on this matter, and the point of view put forward by some of us was not that which the hon. Gentleman has put forward.
Mr. Jennings: Did the Committee decide in favour of the two types being included? That is my point.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order. It is surely undesirable that the private discussions of the Committee should be even broached in open Debate because it will inevitably lead to the whole question of the discussions of the Committee behind closed doors being brought out on the Floor of the House, and as there is no report of those discussions they may be inaccurately quoted.
Mr. Speaker: The report and proceedings of the Committee are not before the House, and have not been reported, and they may not be discussed in the House. All that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) said, however, was that the opinion was not unanimous. He should not go beyond that.
Mr. Rankin: I had that carefully in mind, and I did not propose in any way to venture into the opinions which were expressed, but I felt that the point I made was one which ought to be made because the position of the Joint Committee was being emphasised in the Debate. I think I made quite a fair point.
A good deal has been made of the right of option, and it has been urged that that right should remain. The point should be kept in mind that in the Local Government Act, 1933, the right of option as between the professional auditor and the district auditor was only retained, so far as the boroughs were concerned, in order to get rid of a method called the elective audit, which was condemned by every judicial authority in
1166
this country. That is the reason the option was allowed, but that is not a defence of a further retention of this principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman who initiated the discussion from the Opposition side of the House pointed out that there was a precedent for the option and also for the professional auditor so far as water boards were concerned. He named two, but he omitted to go further and point out that out of 47 water boards in England there are 37 which have opted for the district auditor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Opted?".] —yes, and now have a district auditor. I will drop the word "opted."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member said that 37 water boards out of 47 had "opted." Does he mean that those 37 had the choice?
Mr. Rankin: No, I will drop the word "opted," and use the phrase that they are now carrying on using the district auditor. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) pointed out that there were 69 boroughs which had a professional auditor as against nine which had the district auditor. I suggest that he will find, if he looks into this matter further, that in most of these cases the professional auditor is concerned with the commercial and trading aspects of those boroughs, and not with the aspect that is before the House at the moment. If we look into the position of those boroughs we find matters in relation to education, rating and valuation, public assistance, motor taxes and functions under the National Health Act and the National Assistance Act are all subject to district audit, so that within the boroughs, while we may have the professional audit in being for the commercial and trading side, so far as these other aspects of the activities of the borough are concerned it is the district audit which is used.
Mr. John R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend allow me—
Mr. Rankin: I am sorry I cannot give way at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley stated that the district auditor was a civil servant, a member of the staff of the Ministry of Health. It did seem that there was an inference in that sentence, and I think it is my duty to make it clear that the district auditor is an independent statutory officer who is

1167
not in any way controlled by the Ministry of Health.
The question of qualifications has been raised. It has been asked whether the district auditor is better qualified than the professional auditor, or the other way round. I shall not make any comparisons, but it is perfectly clear from the evidence which we had in the Joint Committee—which is available to hon. Members—because I put the questions myself, that the district auditor is a person who is not less well qualified than a professional auditor both academically and on the professional side. In addition there is this further point to be borne in mind, that the district auditor has powers which the professional auditor has not. He has powers to call for papers and documents, powers of disallowance and powers of surcharge, and these are powers which the professional auditor has not.
Mr. Jennings Mr. Jennings rose—
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: I am not giving way. The professional auditor may report back to the council that appoints him, but the district auditor, by virtue of the powers vested in him as such, has power to take action. It has been shown in the Committee that that power has been exercised and exercised to a fairly large extent. I am supporting the Amendment proposed by the Minister because of these facts and I support it with the greater conviction because I opposed an earlier Amendment which he moved on the Nene Catchment Board.
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I rise to make two short points only. The first arises out of the intervention of the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), who asked whether it was not possible that the district auditor would be more likely to be impartial than the professional auditor? I think that is a wrong interpretation of the attitude of auditors of any kind, whether district or professional. I think the reputation of that profession for impartiality in whatever capacity they serve is so high that it should not be called in question in the House in that manner. I do not think we can weigh it one way or the other. The main purpose for which I rose was to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, if I could have his attention.
Mr. Ede: I have been listening to every word the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy. I wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, whose advice on matters of this kind we welcome on all sides of the House. Earlier we heard the right hon. Gentleman dealing in a moderate and courteous manner with the pledge given by the then Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), and he made it plain that he wanted that pledge to be honoured and honoured to the full. We all accept it from the Home Secretary because we respect his view on these matters. He said we should look at these Amendments as they came along and judge whether they raised matters of principle or matters of detail.
I think the House is now entitled to hear from the Home Secretary whether he will really say that this Amendment raises a matter which goes, in the words of the pledge, "to the root of the audit." I think the right hon. Gentleman should stand up and say whether it does go to the root of the audit. Every local authority has its audit done by professional auditors. I will not reiterate the arguments already adduced, but authority after authority has been cited and power after power given where professional auditors are concerned. I have already made the point in answer to the right hon. Member for Linlithgow that there is no distinction in impartiality and professional capacity between district and professional auditors. [Interruption.] I have given a much fairer argument than the right hon. Member. Authorities can be cited on both sides. Some authorities prefer a professional auditor. Others prefer the district auditor. No doubt there are advantages on one side or the other, but the quesiton which I want to put to the Home Secretary is whether he is prepared to stand at that Despatch Box and say that it is not a decision which is clear-cut between a professional auditor and the district auditor, but whether discretion should be given or not in a matter which goes to the whole root of the order. I am prepared to give way while he does so.
Captain Marsden: I certainly oppose this Amendment. It strikes at the roots of all fairness in the life of this form of

1169
corporation of which we are talking. Hon. Members talk about councils and who should audit their accounts. This is not a council, it is a corporation. But even if they do give these figures I do not think it proves anything. Supposing everyone chose to have a professional auditor, why should the Minister have to make a regulation? Supposing they chose the district auditor, why again should the Minister have to make a regulation? Would he make a regulation if 99 per cent. made one choice, and there was only one exception? There is one private enterprise company in this country for one part of England which runs a private telephone service at a profit where a call locally costs one penny. That is an indication. Let Ministers keep that in mind as a star by which they may be guided.
In the Committee we had a lot of evidence about the qualifications of auditors, and I do not think it matters very much if we all come round to the same point and if we only remember that the importance of the point is the right of a corporation to choose whom they wish. Certain facts stuck in my mind. One was that the reports on the accounts of water boards made by professional auditors were received within two and a half months of the end of the year, while 11 months elapsed before reports were received from district auditors. These reports after 11 months gave facts which were interesting as historical documents, but those received within two and a half months gave information early enough to provide a useful guide to the previous year's experience.
But that is not the matter of primary importance, which is that the corporations should have the right to choose. The district auditors get the whole of their training, examination and experience within the Civil Service. I am not criticising them for the work they do today for the councils. They have a certain knowledge of local law, and of council law, which probably the professional auditor has not got. The district auditors really are there to protect the council. The professional auditors in a limited liability company are there to protect the shareholders. That is the angle from which they view their operations. Even if these are public utility services, one
1170
does not want them run at a considerable loss. The district auditors are in a very different position from that of the professional auditors of other companies, whose whole business is to see that their accounts are audited in accordance with the practice of companies which have to run at a profit or close. But there is much other evidence with which I will not bore the House, because I think Members are getting a bit tired. Do let us get to the main principles of this matter. We are not asking that one form of auditor should be appointed or another form of auditor, but it is that a corporation should have a choice.
It has been mentioned once or twice that there is something behind all this. I am perfectly certain there is, because on 19th February this year the decision was made to accept the petitions which allowed the choice of auditor to the corporations. A letter was sent out by the Minister's political agent to the various accountant and auditor corporations to inform them of this as if it were settled and fixed without dispute, and that it would be incorporated in the statutory order or the Bill as the case might be. Nothing was said for two months or more, when suddenly it crops up that the Minister is going against the finding of the Joint Committee, disregarding all the evidence, and all the vast expenditure on the various counsel who presented their case, and so on and so forth, and make the order.
Why? Everybody knows why. "Jobs for the boys" once more. Owing to the large amount of nationalisation and cutting down of this and that, the various district auditors are finding themselves without these higher-paid posts for which they yearn. Here is an opportunity to bring in a rule and regulation and this act of law means this particular Corporation has to have a district auditor. That will satisfy somebody and give somebody else a job, and in the absence of any evidence given to the contrary that is the reason this House must accept as the reason for bringing in the Amendment to this Bill now.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 63.

Division No. 133.]

AYES

[10.45 p.m.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Hardy, E. A.

Pearson, A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Attewell, H. C.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Awbery, S. S.

Hobson, C. R.

Price, M. Philips

Bacon, Miss A.

Holman, P.

Proctor, W. T.

Baird, J.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Reeves, J.

Barton, C.

Houghton, A. L. N. D.

Reid, T. (Swindon.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hoy, J.

Roberts, A.

Blyton, W. R.

Hubbard, T.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

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

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

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

Royle, C.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

Scollan, T.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Jenkins, R. H.

Sharp, Granville

Burden, T. W.

Johnston, Douglas

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Callaghan, James

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Carmichael, James

Kenyon, C.

Simmons, C. J.

Collindridge, F.

Kinley, J.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Collins, V J.

Lang, G.

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

Colman, Miss G. M.

Logan, D. G.

Snow, J. W.

Cooper, G.

Lyne, A. W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Corlett, Dr. J

McAdam, W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Daggar, G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Steele, T.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McGhee, H. G.

Sylvester, G. O.

Deer, G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Delargy, H. J.

McKinley, A. S.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dodds, N. N.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Driberg, T. E. N.

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Ewart, R.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Watkins, T. E.

Fairhurst, F.

Mathes's, Rt. Hon. George

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Morley, R.

Wilkes, L.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Moyle, A.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Gilzean, A.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Willis, E.

Grierson, E.

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Oldfield, W. H.

Yates, V. F.

Guy. W. H.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Palmer, A. M. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hurd, A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

Pickthorn, K.

Baldwin, A. E

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

Raikes, H. V.

Barlow, Sir J.

Jennings, R.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bossom, A. C.

Joyhnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Renton, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

Scott, Lord W.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Low, A. R. W.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Spence, H. R.

Butcher, H. W.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Challen, C.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

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

MacLeod, J.

Studholme, H. G.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Sutcliffe, H.

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

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

Marsden, Capt. A.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maude, J. C.

Touche, G. C.

Gage, C.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mellor, Sir J.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

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

York, C.

Grimston, R V.

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hogg Hon. Q.

Nicholson, G.

Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

Further Amendments made: In page 19, leave out lines 5 to 33.
In page 22, line 5, leave out "May," and insert "July."
In page 22, leave out lines 10 and 11, and insert:
"The first meeting of the Board shall be the annual meeting for the first year, and the first meeting of the Board after the first day of
1172
July in any subsequent year shall be the annual meeting for that year."
In page 28, line 15, after "to," insert "66, 68 to."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a long discussion on this Bill, and I suppose we should be grateful to the Government for that, for after all they have given us far less time for far more important points this week. After this discussion what has been achieved? I have no doubt that the compliment paid to the chairman of the Nene Catchment Board, Mr. Dallas, may have brought a blush to his cheeks. But what has been achieved? Two things. The Minister of Health has exercised his power, and a great victory has been gained in his absence, thanks to the efforts of his Parliamentary Secretary. The victory is that the Nene Catchment Board will not be able to decide that the take from the River Nene should be reduced from 20 million to not less than 16 million gallons, but this will have to be decided by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health. That is the first great achievement. The Parliamentary Secretary has said "The interests of the catchment board may conflict with the interests of the Water Board, and we must have the two Ministers as arbitrators to take into account the interests of the catchment board and the water board." If this is done as the Bill now stands the Ministers will be acting outside the Bill.
It is clearly laid down that in deciding whether the flow shall be reduced to 16 million gallons a day they must have regard to the state of the river. All we have achieved is that instead of the Nene Catchment Board having regard to the state of the river the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health are to do that. On what information are they to do that? Presumably on the information supplied by the Nene Catchment Board. That is a wonderful achievement. It is for that reason, and for one other—to prevent the water board taking powers to select auditors—that the House has been occupied for the greater part of today. As I said, the Minister of Health has won a great victory, and I think we should be grateful to him for revealing so clearly by his attitude today how easy it would have been to have provided proper time for consideration of the Iron and Steel Bill.
I should like to conclude if I might, for I have been connected with this matter almost from its inception, by wishing this water board well, by hoping that it will
1174
get into operation speedily, that it will work economically, and, in particular, that it will pay attention, and great attention to perhaps the less remunerative because they are the less populated areas within its limits to ensure that water is brought to these areas at the earliest possible moment. I hope the water board will work well and work speedily, and that its operation will not be materially delayed by the action of the Minister, which has resulted in the postponement of the order contained in this Bill.
I should perhaps say one word with regard to this being the first instance of a Bill coming before this House on the Report stage under the Statutory Instruments (Special Procedure) Act of 1945. This is the first experience we have had of it, and I must say that I do not think the grounds put forward by the Government for rejecting the recommendations of the Joint Committee in any way justify the Government's action. The arguments are entirely insufficient, and indeed I think the absence of the Minister of Health throughout the day's proceedings indicates that he has not much faith in the contentions put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary.
10.56 p.m.
Captain Marsden: I do ask hon. Members to remind themselves that we are creating a precedent today. I ask them seriously to consider their position if they are asked to serve on joint or similar committees on which possibly they will spend much time and care to present a case, where there will be much expense, and to do so sometimes for no purpose whatsoever, for if the Minister considers otherwise he will wipe out the results of their deliberations at a stroke. At the same time the House, as has happened today, will occupy much time which is badly wanted to discuss much more important Measures, like the Iron and Steel Bill. However, I do not suppose we shall divide against this Bill. Let Mid-Northamptonshire have the best supply of water as soon as possible, and let the people in that area realise that any delay will not be as the result of the action of those on this side of the House but due entirely to the Minister of Health.
10.57 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We certainly do not intend to divide against the Third Reading but it would be churlish if we

1175
did not pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his work today. It is our view that an altogether undue strain has been put upon him on this occasion, and that the continued absence from the House of both of the Ministers responsible for the Bill is a piece of grave discourtesy. We wish to thank the Home Secretary for his presence throughout the latter stages of our Debate, and for his courteous replies when a subject on which he felt himself competent to speak came up, but neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor any spokesman of the Government here could convey to the House the considered opinions of the two Ministers or make, if necessary, any concessions as a result of the arguments which were brought forward. The argument which was brought forward on the last Amendment, which was supported from both sides with a considerable amount of skill and a notable absence of bias, had simply to be ignored by the Parliamentary Secretary, who had no authority to make any concessions. In those circumstances, it is impossible to believe that the principles of Parliamentary debate are being properly carried out and if on future occasions the practice continues, it will be necessary to renew and intensify our efforts.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LIABILITY FOR DOMESTIC WATER RATE.)
Lords Amendment: In line 20, leave out "by a local water authority."
11.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure nothing here is going to the root of the matter in any way. I trust the Secretary of State can give us that assurance.
Mr. Woodburn: This is a simple liquid Amendment, and not a root Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(LEVY OF DOMESTIC WATER RATE ON AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS.)
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.
Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This part of the Clause is being replaced in the Bill, and the Amendment is simply to secure a re-adjustment.
Mr. Spence: May I have some explanation as to why this part of the Clause should be lifted bodily and transferred, word for word, to a later part of the same Bill?
Mr. Woodburn: This part of the Bill deals with the domestic water supply, and it is being taken to another part where it more properly belongs.
Mr. Spence: This part deals not only with the domestic, but also with the agricultural water supply, and some of us are concerned with the exact basis on which we are to be rated for water supply. To take an example, a farm with 150 head of cattle, may use a million gallons of water a year and it is important that we should differentiate between the domestic and the agricultural water rates; I cannot understand why this part has been transferred to the end of the Bill.
Mr. Woodburn: It is only from the point of view of drafting that it has been put in a more appropriate part of the Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is not, then, following the precedent just put through the House by the English Minister of Health's Department and attempting to go back on the principle that domestic water rate should not be charged except to anyone who has used the supply? He is acting in sharp contradistinction to the idea imposed on the unhappy English citizen who has to pay for water which he has not received and which he is not likely to receive.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 33, at end, insert new Clause "A" (Temporary provisions as to defrayal of expenses where requisite information, etc., not available.)

1177

(1) If the Secretary of State, on a representation made to him by one of the authorities concerned, is satisfied that it will be impracticable for a supplying authority, notwithstanding the exercise by them of all due diligence, to obtain the information required to enable them in the year beginning on the appointed day to allocate within the required time their expenses in supplying water in the district or part of the district of another local authority and in their own district in manner provided by subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act and to furnish such information as under subsection (5) of section twelve of this Act they may be required to furnish, he may, subject to the provisions of this section, make an order modifying the provisions of this Part of this Act in relation to the defrayal of the expenses of that supplying authority.

(2) An order made under this section shall provide that the expenses of the supplying authority in supplying water in the district or part of the district of another local authority and in their own district shall in the year beginning on the appointed day be defrayed—

(a) as to such part of the said expenses as is equal to the total product of the water rate levied by the supplying authority in the district of that other authority in the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by that other authority; and

(b) as to the remainder of the said expenses, by the supplying authority.

(3) An order made under this section shall provide for the issue by the supplying authority to any other authority to whom part of the said expenses are under the order allocated as aforesaid, of a requisition for the payment by that other authority of that part of the said expenses and any requisition so issued shall have the like force and effect as a requisition issued under subsection (2) of section eleven of this Act:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act any domestic water rate levied by a local authority to whom a requisition is issued in pursuance of an order made under this section shall in so far as it falls to be levied in respect of premises within the limits of supply of the supplying authority be levied only in respect of premises in respect of which a water rate was levied by the supplying authority in the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.

(4) Where a supply of water for domestic purposes was provided in the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, by a supplying authority to premises in the district of another local authority and no payment otherwise than by way of a charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed or payable under an agreement or otherwise was recovered in that year by the supplying authority in respect of that supply, an order made under this section in relation to the defrayal of the expenses of that supplying authority shall provide that, notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act or in the principal Act, the supplying authority shall, for the purpose of defraying that part of their said expenses falling to be
1178
defrayed by them, be entitled to recover in the year beginning on the appointed day a charge calculated or payable as aforesaid in respect of that supply.

(5) An order made under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is introduced to meet the difficulties of local authorities which happen to have found themselves in a rather complicated position because of the nonexistence of information necessary to carry out the Act in time; it also makes certain adjustments.
Mr. McKie: Before we add this Clause to the Bill a word of thanks should be said to the Secretary of State. He will remember that in the Committee stage points were put by the Opposition regarding the necessity of introducing some words whereby the position of local authorities should be safeguarded as they are now going to be. I understand this new Clause is being inserted at the express desire of the City Council of Dundee, but there are many other local authorities, some of them small, which are in the same position of supplying water to other authorities outwith the boundaries of the authority concerned. It would have been very difficult for them to comply with the conditions in the short time available. I and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) are in the same position as far as that is concerned, and I am sure he would agree that I am expressing our joint thanks to the Secretary of State, not only for having been so good as to include this Clause, but also for having seen the wisdom of the advice tendered him by the Opposition, and for having met the various requests which have been made by the local authorities.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 21, at end insert new Clause "B" (Provisions as to supply of water to agricultural subjects):

(1) Where a supply of water for purposes other than domestic purposes is provided for premises being agricultural lands and heritages, the local water authority shall require the supply to be taken either by meter or on

1179
other specified terms as they may from time to time in their discretion determine.

(2) Where a local water authority supply water by meter for purposes other than domestic purposes to any premises being agricultural lands and heritages and also supply water for domestic purposes to any dwelling house comprised in such premises, the authority shall, if it is reasonably practicable so to do, provide the whole supply of water to such premises and dwelling house through a single meter.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) of this section upon a local water authority shall, in relation to premises being agricultural lands and heritages on the appointed day, be exercised by them as soon as may be after the appointed day and in any case not later than the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman has taken three subsections out of one part of the Bill and is now trying to put them back in another. We are obliged to him for giving us the opportunity of reconsidering this matter. The fact is that farmers are only just beginning to realise what this Measure is going to mean to them. Under the 1929 Act they pay water rate on 12½ per cent. of the rateable value of their land, so a farm worth £200 will pay water rate on £25, which at 3s. in the £ is £3 15s. They are very perplexed at the fact that there is no guidance to the local authorities as to what the charge for the meter rate may be, or what other alternative arrangement—"other specified terms" as the Clause says—may mean. If the water rate remains as it is, in some cases they might find their present water rate multiplied something like 100 times, and that alarms them considerably. I agree that de-rating was a measure to assist a depressed industry, and I agree that since the National Government came into being in 1931, and progressively since then, the farmers have gradually got away from that depressed state and have now ceased to be a depressed industry.
I also agree that the greatest economy should be fostered in the use of water, and there are many ways in which that can be promoted. But not in all cases. For example, in dairy farming it is not possible in the washing of bottles. I am informed by experts that during the summer time cows drink 20 gallons a
1180
day, and that, I understand, cannot be recovered. I am also told that a herd of 100 dairy cows would consume at least half a million gallons of water per year. I do not mean to say that they consume it bodily, but that is the amount required for a herd of that type. Some compensation should be made to the farmers for what is bound to be a very considerable increase in their charges, and for that reason we are now seeking an assurance that in the guaranteed prices fixed for farmers in the future, particularly for the dairying industry, this additional charge, which is likely to be very heavy, is taken into account.
Mr. Woodburn: All I can say is that in the fixing of these prices all the interests of farmers are carefully gone into and full justice is done to them.
Mr. McKie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will profit by the words addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). It is usual in these circumstances to disclose one's personal interest. I am interested in dairy farming, and I can confirm almost everything that my hon. Friend has just said. The consumption of water in Scotland has been increasing considerably over a long period of years. I know that some people in this House and outside find it hard to realise it, but I am assured that it is so.
As regards the vital industry of dairying, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take to heart the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend. It is the desire of this Government, as it was of previous Governments, and as it must be the desire of every succeeding Government, to maintain and indeed to increase the dairy production of this country. We cannot possibly have an efficient dairy industry, and produce milk in the way it ought to be produced, and avoid serious disease or illness amongst the people of this country, without an adequate supply of pure water—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): Hear, hear!
Mr. McKie: I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport should find anything mirthful in that remark. If he was as well acquainted with the day-to-day affairs of

1181
the countryside as I am he would not be so ready to jeer. In all seriousness I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take to heart the warnings which have been addressed to him. As I was about to say—and I will say it now when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is in a more reasonable frame of mind—we cannot possibly have proper dairy production in this country, with due cleanliness, unless we have the adequate supply of pure water to which my hon. Friend has just referred.
The right hon. Gentleman must also take seriously to heart this question of mounting costs of production. It is all very well to ride off, as the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to do, by saying, "We are taking all these things into consideration." In the past we have had many instances of Governments of varying political complexions saying just the same kind of thing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will live up to—if that is the right expression—this expressed desire, more worthily than some of his predecessors. It is all very well to say that the prices for farmers are in a satisfactory position at the present time. They are. But the costs of production are mounting, and the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised—because so far as Scotland is concerned he is the Minister of Agriculture—to take all this into serious consideration when the time conies, as it does month by month and year by year, to revise the scale of payment to the dairy farmer, and also assure him of the supply of pure water which is essential for the industry, so that not merely should the farmers be helped, but that the public should have that efficient supply of water it is the intention of the Government always to guarantee.
Question put. and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. (Several with Special Entries.)

SPECIAL ROADS BILL
Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 10.—(ADDITIONAL POWERS OF ACQUIRING LAND FOR SPECIAL ROADS.)
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert:

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the power of a special road authority to acquire land under section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, shall include power to acquire any land which in the opinion of the authority is required—

(a) for the improvement of an existing road which is included in the route of the special road but has not been transferred to the authority by an order under this Act;

(b) for the purposes of any order made in relation to the special road under section three of this Act; or

(c) for the provision of service stations or other buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction of the special road or the use or maintenance thereof.

(2) A special road authority shall not be enabled by virtue of this section to acquire otherwise than by agreement any land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the special road or, where the land is required for the construction, improvement or alteration of any other road, from the middle of that other road."

11.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an explanation in regard to the interpretation of the Amendment. Briefly speaking, the Clause is to give additional powers of acquiring land for special roads to a special roads authority and the question I wish to ask is as to the extent of the powers given under this new Amendment. I do not think there is any doubt that the new form of the Clause is preferable to the original Clause as it stood in the Bill when it left this House, but I am in substantial doubt as to the real limitation, if any, of the powers which a special roads authority will have under Clause 10 (1, c). If I direct the attention of the House to the terms, hon. Members will see the reason for my inquiry. The new Clause is to enable a special road authority to acquire land

1183
"for the provision of service stations or other buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction of the special road or the use or maintenance thereof."
The special road authority would have power to acquire land for the provision of service stations to be used in connection with the construction and, generally speaking, the service of a special road. One would visualise from that something in the nature of dumps of road materials or places for roadworking machinery, or a similar type of building, but the initial use referred to in the Clause is substantially enlarged by the subsequent words,
"or other buildings or facilities."
The land can be used not only in connection with the construction of a special road or its maintenance, but also in connection with the use of a special road. The original rather limited words are extended to read,
"for the provision of facilities to be used in connection with the use thereof."
That seems to me to be exceedingly wide. It might go as far as the provision of land for the building of hotels, and even cinemas—in case one wants to rest and refresh oneself physically while using the road—or for any other cognate purpose. Therefore I think we should have some indication from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the intention behind the use of these words. I appreciate that not even he can tell us what definition the law courts, if called upon to do so, might put upon these words.
The second matter is, for whom, or by whom, will the service stations or other buildings or facilities be operated when the land on which they are built has been acquired by the Special Roads Authority. Are these buildings, etc., for which the land has been acquired to be used by the Special Roads Authority which has the power to acquire the land, or are they to be used by the hon. Gentleman's Department or by any other authority; or is it open to anyone, for instance, myself or you, Mr. Speaker, to come along to the Special Roads Authority and say, "I consider that there is a nice site there for a cinema or for a petrol station or for something else, and I shall be grateful if you will com-
1184
pulsorily acquire the land so that I can utilise it for that purpose"? I do not think the ultimate ownership of the buildings to be put on the land is clear, and I think we are entitled to some observations from the Parliamentary Secretary upon these two aspects of the matter.
Mr. Callaghan: The Amendment which has been put down in fact does not concern subsection (1, c), to which the hon. Member has referred. If he will look at the original Bill, he will see that the words which are repeated in the Lords Amendment are the same as those in the original Bill, upon which we had a discussion in Committee on 7th December. The Amendment affects not subsection (1, c), at all, but the amount of land, or the width of land, which can be acquired compulsorily by the Special Roads Authority.
Under the original Bill, the Special Roads Authority could acquire, otherwise than by agreement, land lying more than 220 yards from the centre of the road. The purpose of the Amendment is to alter that so that the Road Authority can acquire only, otherwise than by agreement, if the land is within 220 yards of the centre of the road, and can acquire beyond that distance only by agreement. The other parts of the Clause are not altered, and the discussion which we had in committee on 7th December upon the point which the hon. Member has raised really has not been widened. It would be incorrect to suggest that we had widened the provision taken in the original Bill. But I can briefly repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on that occasion, that this is no backdoor way of securing an extension of municipal trading, or something of that sort. That was not his intention. The words have not been altered from those in the original Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. (Several with Special Entries.)
Resolved "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS (COACHES)
  AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS (COACHES)
  OIL REFINING, HAIFA
  OIL REFINING, HAIFA
  ARAB REFUGEES (RELIEF)
  ARAB REFUGEES (RELIEF)
  MALTESE EMIGRANTS (PASSAGES)
  MALTESE EMIGRANTS (PASSAGES)
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING
  COLONIAL SERVICE (HANSARD)
  COLONIAL SERVICE (HANSARD)
  SEYCHELLES (LAW REVISION)
  SEYCHELLES (LAW REVISION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Tinned Meat (Export)
  Tinned Meat (Export)
  Farm Workers (Seasonal Allowances)
  Farm Workers (Seasonal Allowances)
  Flour (Extraction Rate)
  Flour (Extraction Rate)
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Oatmeal (Export)
  Oatmeal (Export)
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Offices, Norfolk
  Sub-Offices, Norfolk
  Telephone Installations, Bury
  Telephone Installations, Bury
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Auxiliary Force (Motorcars)
  Auxiliary Force (Motorcars)
  Berlin Air Lift (Pilots' Conditions)
  Berlin Air Lift (Pilots' Conditions)
  Maltese Airmen (Pay and Allowances)
  Maltese Airmen (Pay and Allowances)
  COAL INDUSTRY (PRODUCTION COSTS)
  COAL INDUSTRY (PRODUCTION COSTS)
  R.A.O.C. ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFF)
  R.A.O.C. ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFF)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hearing Aids (Exports)
  Hearing Aids (Exports)
  War Damage (Business Claims)
  War Damage (Business Claims)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (DEMOBILISATION)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (DEMOBILISATION)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE POSTS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE POSTS)
  RHEUMATISM (TREATMENT)
  RHEUMATISM (TREATMENT)
  GREECE (BRITISH MISSIONS)
  GREECE (BRITISH MISSIONS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
2.36 p.m.
MOUNTBATTEN ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL
Read 2a, and committed.

SCOTTISH HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEMES
2.37 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I beg to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the £50,000,000 to which Lord Morrison referred in his speech on the 5th April as the total amount contemplated to be spent for the development of the Scottish hydro-electric schemes will be a capital expenditure of a commercial nature secured by interest-bearing debentures or some similar form of security issued by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board under the Act and with a view presumably to becoming revenue-earning in the future; or, on the other hand, will it be in the form of a direct grant from the Government as might be inferred from Lord Morrison's remarks.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, the £50,000,000
234
to which I referred in the debate on April 5 is the approximate total estimated cost of the hydro-electric schemes which have up till now been confirmed by the Secretary of State. This expenditure will become revenue-producing as the schemes are completed and come into operation. The schemes are being financed by the issue of stock. No Government grant is payable to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, who are under statutory obligation to balance their revenue and expenditure over a period, but the stock issued by the board up to the present has been guaranteed by the Treasury.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord on behalf of my noble friend for the answer which he has given. The noble Lord will agree, I think, that this transaction is on a purely business basis and will not, of course, interfere with any future grants that may be decided upon for the Highlands.
LORD MORRISON: That is perfectly correct. I am sorry that the noble Viscount who put down this Question has not been able to come here to-day. So far as I can ascertain, he appears to be the only member of your Lordships' House who read into my speech something which I never said, or even suggested.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has now made the matter perfectly clear.

BRITISH REPRESENTATION IN SPAIN
2.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government why it is that a British Ambassador is appointed to Lisbon, Moscow and not to Madrid; whether the continuance of such a policy is calculated to strengthen the Atlantic Pact, and if not, whether they intend to take steps to bring such an unrealistic policy to an end.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, His Majesty's Government normally accredit a Head of

235
Mission to every Government with which they are in diplomatic relations, except where there are special reasons against doing so. In the case of Spain there is such a reason—namely, the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1946, part of which recommended that member States should withdraw their Heads of Missions from Madrid. So long as this recommendation remains in force, His Majesty's Government will abide by it. Since Spain is not a signatory to the Atlantic Pact, the absence of a British Ambassador from Madrid can hardly affect the Pact. In answer to the third part of the noble Earl's Question, I must refer him to the answer which I gave on April 6 to the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I cannot understand from the noble Lord's answer why it is, apart from the general question of the United Nations, that we are able to have an Ambassador in Moscow and yet not to have one in Madrid. I quite understand the international difficulties, but surely the policy is rather unrealistic. Cannot the noble Lord tell us that His Majesty's Government are, in fact, going to modify their attitude towards Spain, especially in view of the official announcement of the American Government which appears in to-day's Press?
LORD HENDERSON: I am not able to give any such assurance. I have indicated the basis of His Majesty's Government's present policy. That basis still remains.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, would His Majesty's Government not agree that the inclusion of Spain in the Atlantic Pact would, by reason of her strategic position, enable her to make a very considerable contribution? Would His Majesty's Government not agree further that dislike of a nation's form of government is no valid reason for a diplomatic boycott, the continuation of which, surely, far from weakening the position of that government, must serve to strengthen and consolidate General Franco's régime in the hearts and minds of the proud Spanish people?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord on April 6, there
236
are more than strategic considerations to be borne in mind. As regards the second part of his question, there is no diplomatic boycott. Although there is no British Ambassador in Madrid at present there is a British Chargé d'Affaires.

PETROL RATIONING
2.43 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can state clearly the reason for the continuance of petrol rationing; whether it is due to shortage of dollars, in view of the huge increase of production within the sterling area; whether it is due to shortage of tankers, in view of the very large amount of tanker tonnage completed or under construction within the sterling area; whether it is due to the Berlin Airlift; whether it is due to shortage of refining facilities within the sterling area; whether it is due to sending the savings of petrol by British motorists to Poland, the Argentine and other countries; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to bring the system of petrol rationing to an end before the next General Election and, if so, when they anticipate being able to carry this out, indicating the governing factor.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, replying to this Question on behalf of my right honourable friend, I have to say that the continuance of petrol rationing in this country is due to the fact that any increase in consumption would involve additional dollar expenditure or a reduction in exports. We can afford neither at the present. Shortage of tankers is not a factor which limits imports of motor spirit into the United Kingdom at the moment. The output of motor spirit and other petroleum products by British companies is limited by the refinery capacity available, which is at present fully absorbed in meeting existing demands. The oil companies have plans for a very large expansion of refinery capacity, but these will not mature fully for some time.
The consumption of aviation spirit on the Berlin Airlift is only about 120,000 tons a year. Less than half of this would

237
be saved if the Airlift ceased, and these savings would be required for the expanding needs of civil aviation. Sales of motor spirit are made to many foreign countries, including, the Argentine, but not Poland. I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to bring the system of rationing to an end.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the answer which he has given. May I ask him whether he will bear in mind that it is due to the suggestions of the motorists' organisations that some 20,000 tons of petrol have been saved every month? It is in the official statements that only 90,000 tons will be used in doubling the ration in June, July, and August May I ask whether he will consider giving British motorists the benefit of the remaining 130,000 tons which have been saved through these suggestions from their own organisations.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we will give the most friendly consideration, as we have already done, to what the noble Earl suggests. As I think he is well aware, the future supplies of non-dollar petrol are mainly dependent on the completion of the increased refining capacity, a matter which is now in hand.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, is not the suggestion that what we may save, or a large part of what we may save, on the possible cessation of the Berlin Airlift, will be expended on civil aviation (which I thought was contracting because sonic uneconomic services are to be discontinued) an entirely new suggestion, and one that the Government have never thought of before?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am not aware of that. I hope the economies which are being now exercised by the air Corporations do not necessarily mean that there will be less flying; there are other methods of economising. I understand that the statement I have made is literally correct. Less than half of the amount would be saved, and it is anticipated that these savings will be required for purposes of civil aviation. That is a true statement.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.46 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL rose to call attention to the Economic Situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for some years now, we on these Benches have been calling on the Government to abandon the habit of wishful thinking and face the authentic economic facts. Some eighteen months ago, I ventured to beg them, in the name of equality of sacrifice, to give up their cheerful propaganda and tell the public the truth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now done so, to a great extent, and we on this side of the House, at any rate, are grateful to him for exposing the real position, unpalatable us it may be. There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just men. But in another place it seems as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's outspoken frankness has led to wailing and gnashing of teeth—of which, of course, there is no lack since the National Health Service came into effect.
Since the Election, same Ministers seem to have been living in a fool's paradise. If we can scarcely say the same of their supporters, it is only because many of them have been in a fool's purgatory. They have been persuaded to put up with shortages, high prices, queues and the general drab unpleasantness by the assurance that these are merely the temporary aftermath of the war and if only people trusted the Socialist Government they would soon advance to a heaven of abundance, with low prices, shorter hours and, of course, diminished taxation. This myth has been blown sky-high by the Chancellor's Budget speech. He tells us frankly that we are not on probation, or even on remand; we have a life sentence—and, what is more, with hard labour, though there may be a possibility of remission in the end, if people labour hard enough and if their behaviour is good enough for a sufficient number of years. That is not a very cheerful prospect. That we are heading in this direction has long been clear and has been stated frequently from these Benches. If the people insist on spending 40 per cent. of the national income, 40 per cent. will have to be raised by taxation. The richer classes possess only 25 per cent. or so, and if

239
they are skinned to the bone, it means that 15 to 20 per cent. will have to be taken from the wage-earners. They, in turn, object and ask for higher wages. If higher wages are granted, inflation is inevitable. The Chancellor's only hope is to try by logic and persuasion to get the unions to agree to freeze wages. The question is: Will he succeed?
Before discussing this main problem, perhaps I should say a few words about the general economic position, and about our balance of trade. We are told many encouraging things about this. Exports, it seems, have risen in one year from 109 to 135 per cent. of pre-war volume. And in the same period our negative balance has shrunk from £630,000,000 to £130,000,000. All this sounds very good, but unfortunately it is not quite so good as it sounds. The facts of the situation can be extracted by studying the Economic Survey. I observe that they have to be "extracted," because a cursory reading leaves an unduly rosy impression; but I suppose rosy is half way between pink and red and, therefore, eminently suitable to a Government document. The couleur de rose is obtained not by any misstatement of fact, or by any faulty logic, but by an undue emphasis on the comparison between 1947 and 1948. This comparison, of course, displays a great improvement, in which we all rejoice; but a great part of the improvement is spurious, for surely, 1947 was an altogether abnormal year. The very foundations of the country's economic life have been ameliorated beyond recognition since that disastrous period. We have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer; we even have a new Minister of Fuel and Power!
We all rejoice that our exports in 1948 reached something like 135 per cent. of pre-war volume. Of course, private industry has contributed the main part of this remarkable achievement, and both the management and men deserve the country's congratulations. Even the nationalised coal mines have played a small but useful part. Although the export of coal is barely one-third of the pre-war figures, it is refreshing to see this source of revenue from overseas once more coming into the picture. Nor do I wish to withhold congratulations from the Government on the part they have
240
played in helping the export drive. Within the limits of their obsession that industry must always be suspect if it seems to be making money, and that too many controls are better than too few, they have done their best.
The broad outlook, as I have said, is that in the volume of our exports there has been a definite improvement and they are now 135 per cent. of pre-war. The spurious element in the apparently brilliant result, of course, lies in the fact that the figure of 135 per cent. in 1948 is contrasted in Government statements with the export volume of 109 per cent. in 1947. The 1947 figures were artificially depressed by the fuel fiasco, euphemistically called the "fuel crisis" in Government publications. In 1947, as we all remember, many industries were slowed down, if not brought to a standstill altogether, for weeks on end by shortage of fuel. There is no need to recapitulate the sad story of how the Minister's obstinacy and lack of foresight allowed this disaster to occur. After all, he has been "kicked upstairs," and his successor, I gather, has every intention of keeping out of hot water
How much our exports were reduced as a result of the 1947 fiasco, it is difficult to say exactly. But this much is clear. In the last quarter of 1946 we exported 111 per cent. of the 1938 volume, and it was planned that over the year 1947 as a whole our exports should average 125 per cent.; in fact, in 1947 they averaged 109 per cent., 2 per cent. less than in the last quarter of 1946. From this it seems evident that the coal fiasco cost us about 15 per cent. of our exports, corresponding to about £200,000,000 in value. That in 1948 we reached 135 per cent. is still a considerable improvement on the expected figure of 125 per cent. in 1947. The Government should be content with this. It is misleading to compare it with the 109 per cent. to which we were reduced by the Fuel Minister's ill-founded optimism. It is calculated to give a very exaggerated view of the rate of our recovery, which may lead to undue hopes and even to unfortunate pronouncements by junior Ministers.
Somewhat the same criticism applies to the boasted improvement in our invisible exports. Part of it, such as the increased

241
earnings of shipping, which in 1948 were £36,000,000 higher than in 1947 and £40,000,000 higher than pre-war—is genuine. But this is only a minor item. The principal improvement is wrapped in impenetrable mystery under the portmanteau heading "Other." According to last year's Economic Survey, this item dropped from plus £100,000,000 pre-war, and plus £73,000,000 in 1946, to minus £20,000,000 in 1947. But here there is a minor enigma, because, according to the latest Economic Survey, it was plus £20,000,000 and not minus £20,000,000 in 1947—but I suppose a mere difference of £40,000,000 should not be taken too seriously! Whatever it was in 1947, we are now told that it jumped to plus £142,000,000 in 1948. Unexplained changes of this magnitude in an item under such a dubious title as "Other" should not allow us to reckon with any confidence on future developments.
Only second in importance to "Other" in accounting for the so-called rise in our invisible exports is the reduction in the extravagant Government spending abroad. This fell by nearly £100,000,000. We are all delighted that the spending Departments should have shown such signs of grace, but it is no good pretending that that proves the activity and revival of our invisible earnings. When we are told that our negative balance improved from £630,000,000 in 1947 to £130,000,000 in 1948 we welcome that fact as a fact. But some of us, at any rate, cannot help recalling that, owing to some sort of financial ineptitude (which again I need not attempt to examine to-day), so many dollars leaked away that we were compelled in the first eight months of 1947 to draw on the American and Canadian Loans to the extent of £680,000,000, instead of the forecast £240,000,000. That foreign exchange was not drained off in the same way in 1948 is no doubt to be attributed to the new régime at the Treasury. We may give to the Prime Minister credit for having made the change, but we must recognise that the vast improvement is due in large part to the avoidance of blunders which retarded our recovery in 1947, and only in much smaller degree to the genuine betterment of our economic circumstances.
If a company making a new issue boasted of the improvement in its balance
242
sheet between one year and the next, and omitted to mention that in the earlier year the factory had been put out of action for three months by fire (perhaps fire is not a happy simile, because it was lack of fire which led to cur predicament: I will say by flood), and also omitted to say that in the earlier year a large part of the earnings had vanished owing to a bad system of accounting and financial mismanagement, rather unpleasant remarks might be made in the City about that company. But we take things more easily in the political world. We do not take it very much amiss if the Government fail in their annual Economic Survey to emphasise the somewhat relevant facts which I have mentioned. We are delighted that there has been a genuine improvement, and congratulate the Chancellor upon it, even though it is not nearly so big as it appears to be.
In this connection I must mention my disappointment at the unenthusiastic expressions which the Chancellor used about the fall in the world prices of goods we import, which seems likely to occur. Surely, the standing excuse for our failure to achieve a balance, upon which the Government have always relied, has been the deterioration in the terms of trade. Whether this is due, as they seem to think, to some malevolent intervention of providence, or to their own inept purchasing, policy, I need not here examine. But it is very disheartening to hear from the Chancellor that if there were a fall in the price of our imports, this would by no means be an unmixed advantage, as it would inevitably be reflected in the prices we receive for our exports. Why was a rise in import prices not equally reflected in a rise of export prices? Surely in the sellers' market just after the war we could have demanded far higher prices, corresponding to those we are asked to pay for our imports of food and raw material. I hope the suspicion is unfounded that the Chancellor's pessimism is clue, in part at any rate, to his fear that we shall not be able to take advantage of a fall in world prices because the Ministries concerned made unwise long-term contracts. Signs and portents to this effect seem to have been observed in various fields.
I will not tax the patience of the House by going through the Economic Survey in

243
detail. As I have said, the picture presented on a cursory reading is quite a cheerful one; it is when one compares it with last year's Survey that doubts begin to appear. Frequently the figures are wildly different from the forecast. In many cases the data given for 1947 in this year's Survey are totally different from those given for the same year in the 1948 Survey. This sort of thing is very disquieting. We can rely, I trust, upon the figures given for the balance of trade, for these should be readily ascertainable. As I have said, I am delighted that the total balance seems to be returning to equilibrium. Whether we shall be able to maintain and expand the volume of our exports, with the possibilities of a recession abroad looming ahead, is not so certain. Price and quality will no doubt be the determining factor. The difficulty of restoring our balance with the Western Hemisphere, which is so strongly emphasised, is, of course, a very real one.
To shift the production of exports to goods saleable in the dollar market will, of course, be our next task. But, in the main, the production problem, if we believe the figures, seems to have been solved. If so, surely the Government's attitude on controls ought to be reexamined. There seems little doubt, according to the figures in the Survey, that the Chancellor's Budget surplus has done its work, and that the inflationary pressure has practically vanished. If this is so, it is not easy to see why the Government insist on maintaining so many controls. We have always been told that they were necessary because prices would rush up if we had too much money chasing too few goods. But now the consumer certainly has not too much money, so this argument has gone by the board. Surely all these controls cannot be needed merely to shift the emphasis of our production effort to goods suitable to the dollar market.
The distribution of man-power seems to show some improvement, though not anything like so much as is needed. In this connection, there is a matter to which I think strong exception should be taken—namely, the institution of a totally new tabulation of the distribution of manpower in this country. Many of the categories have changed, and almost all the figures. If we are to be confined to these new tables, it will be utterly impossible to
244
follow the course of events and to see how the redistribution of man-power is proceeding. One remarkable fact stands out. In every category except the Services, the figures in the new table are greater than in the old—with one exception. In the old table we find for the end of 1948, under the heading "Public Service"—which includes civil servants, national government and local government service—a total of 2,230,000. In the new table the only comparable heading—namely, "Public Administration"—totals only 1,147,000. Not only are the totals different, but the figures for the sub-headings are unrecognizable; 760,000 people seem to have vanished from the public service into thin air, although the total man-power listed in the new series is 3,000,000 greater than in the old. Nobody, of course, believes that 750,000 Government employees have lost their jobs. What has happened, clearly, is that they have been hidden away in other categories, where the fact that they are paid by the public is less easily recognised. It is unfortunate that the most striking change in the new series should concern the figures in the category which has been most criticised—namely, the number of Government employees.
I will mention just one other feature which I hope will interest the noble Lord who is to reply. The House may remember that the Government spokesman found some difficulty in explaining in a recent debate how it was that our total exports had only gone up by a half, while the man-power engaged on orders for exports had more than doubled. If we are restricted to the new table, this particular problem will not vex Government speakers in future. For in this table the man-power engaged on orders for export is omitted altogether. Of course that is one way of escaping from a dilemma. It is rather an ignoble way out, and I am sure the noble Lord who is to reply will not approve of it. To change all the categories is a well-known statistical device for concealing the facts from those anxious to measure the progress of events. The Government can relieve themselves of the imputation that that is their intention if, and only if, they continue to publish, along with their new series, tables showing the distribution of man-power in the old categories, as they have done up to date. I trust that this is their intention. If

245
not, I think we should register a strong protest, not only because Parliament will be deprived of any possibility of discovering what is happening in this field but also because we should all deplore any action by the Government which would be bound to expose them to imputations of such an unhappy character.
I will not weary the House with examining some of the other dubious points in the Survey. There is the usual statement that we are getting practically as much food as ever we did pre-war. But the Government admit that on rations and points we got only half the calories that they claim we get in total, and as they have utterly failed to give one simple menu showing how we can get the other half, I think that claim has been laughed out of court.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): Before the noble Lord goes on, will he forgive me for asking him from which table he claims that the orders for export have been omitted?
LORD CHERWELL: I think it is from the new man-power table in the Economic Survey.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord was not referring to the Digest, which contains the figures?
LORD CHERWELL: I do not think they are in the Digest either—at least, not in the new table.
LORD PAKENHAM: Do not let me interrupt the noble Lord. I felt it right to make the point, as he was making so much of it.
LORD CHERWELL: I am glad to hear that the figure is in the new series in the Digest, but I am still rather doubtful. The figure is given in the old series in the Digest, but not in the new, so far as I recollect.
I do not think I need say much about the Budget changes. As last year, of course, the Chancellor found himself obliged to throw a sop to the Left Wing. I refer, of course, to changes in the duties on property passing at death. As has been pointed out in letters to the Press and elsewhere, the immediate effect is to penalise near relations who inherit property as against strangers and more dis-
246
tant relatives. It is, I think, a new point in the Labour programme that the ideal of the family should be discouraged. I do not think it would commend itself to the electors as a general proposition. But perhaps they have been conditioned by years of propaganda to approve any infliction on people owning more than £30,000, which is the sum at which the Chancellor's penalties become serious. I will revert later to the more general economic implications of this problem.
The only other change that deserves comment is the increase in the charge for telephone calls. This seems a very retrograde step. It has always been held that taxation tending to impede or impair the ease of communications was bad for trade and ought to be avoided. It has another most ominous aspect: although the Post Office has had a favourable balance for a long time, it has never before been frankly stated that that balance should be used as a means of collecting revenue. That is an entirely new departure, which lends itself to almost unlimited extension. Are all other Government monopolies and nationalised industries to be used in this way? Is the price of coal or gas or electricity to be raised whenever the Government need extra revenue? I do not believe anybody had such possibilities in mind when the Government nationalisation plans were discussed, and I think Parliament should be told just where the Government stand in this matter.
On the whole, the Budget is more remarkable for what it does not do than for what it does. All hopes of any reduction in purchase tax or income tax have been brushed aside. The penny off beer seems to have been conceded rather in the hopes of increasing total consumption, and therewith the revenue, than as an alleviation. Indeed, in place of any relief the Chancellor has set a limit to the food subsidies, even though this entails a rise in the price of certain commodities. All this shows great courage and betokens a realism which is quite unusual in Socialist circles but it is inevitable unless the Government spending is reduced. And far from holding out hopes of a reduction, the Chancellor himself anticipates increases. These immense charges are an inescapable consequence of the modern view that it is the duty of the Government to nurse us from the

247
cradle to the grave. The sturdy self-reliant Englishman, proud of his ability to look after himself and his family, seems to have gone out of fashion. Pre-natal care, maternity benefits, welfare officers with the right to intrude into your house and make sure you are running it properly, children's allowances, education, school meals, subsidised food, subsidised houses, medical attention, accident and unemployment benefits, old age pensions and funerals—all these are provided by the State. "All this and Bevan too," as the Chancellor must have said, remembering that all this would have to be paid for. It is his underlining of this brute fact that seems to have caused alarm and despondency amongst members of the Party opposite. Both Parties agree about the desirability of these services. The main difference is that the Conservative Party have always said frankly that if the country wants the services it would have to pay for them, whereas the Socialists have preached that the poor could enjoy these benefits without losing their other amenities. Always they have inculcated the view that the manual workers could get these services without cost to themselves, by soaking the rich.
That this is impossible is quite clear if we compare the national revenue with national expenditure. Roughly half the total annual revenue, or something like £2,000,000,000, is spent on defence, normal administration, debt service and so on. The rest—something like £1,800,000,000—is to be spent on the social services. There is not much saving to be made on the first half. Something like £500,000,000 or 5 per cent. of the national income, is required for the service of the Debt; to cut that would be dishonourable and unjust to the patriotic people who have subscribed to it and who have already had about half their savings taken from them by the fall in the value of money. About 7½ per cent., or £750,000,000, is needed for defence, and no one can contemplate cutting that. The ordinary business of public administration swallows another 6 or 7 per cent. and no one would propose to do without such necessities of civilised life. These items may be regarded as the fixed charges of government. Certain savings might be made by economical administration and good
248
housekeeping; almost certainly we might get better value for our money if we adopted a rather more cheeseparing line. But there is no likelihood of saving more than £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in this sphere of expenditure.
Roughly speaking, the middle classes and the rich contribute in taxes enough to pay for these minimum fixed charges. But they can do no more; if more is needed it must and does come out of the pockets of the poor classes. That this is inevitable emerges clearly if we consider how the national income is distributed amongst the various groups of the population. The so-called rich—that is, the surtax payers with over £2,000 a year gross—number 175,000, about three-quarters of 1 per cent. of the people gainfully employed in the United Kingdom. Their average income is £2,150, making altogether less than 4 per cent. of the total of personal incomes, and barely 2½ per cent. if death duties are taken into account. This year a further 1 per cent., euphemistically called a "Special Contribution." has been taken from them. Clearly, if they were all reduced to beggary this would contribute very little to the 18 per cent. (£1,800,000,000) of the national income required for the social services. What of the middle classes—the 9 per cent. of the people whose breadwinners earn something between £500 and £2,000 a year?. They have been hard hit enough already, in all conscience. I know, of course, that leading members of the Labour Party do not care "two hoots" for them, and think them worth only "a tinker's cuss." But even if one took away everything from them over and above £500 a year, only about 2 per cent. of the national income would become available. Not much contribution to the 18 per cent. required for the social services!
Is there any other source than the 20,000,000 breadwinners with less than £500 a year from which sums of the order of £1,800,000,000 a year could be drawn without alienating Socialist votes? Some short-sighted people point to the large figure under the heading "Profits" in the statistical tables, and clamour for an increased profits tax. Nothing could be more silly. The only thing that counts, or ought to count, is not what profits are made but how much is paid out to the owners. In fact, only a minor part of

249
the total profits of companies is distributed; and this, as we know, is heavily taxed when received unless the recipient's total income is below the exemption limit. The major part, in so far as it is not reserved for tax liabilities and so on, is ploughed back into the business.
If the profits tax were to be increased it could have only two possibilities. The first is that the tax would be added to the price and passed on to the consumer. That would be disastrous in the export market and in the long run would hit the poorer classes in the home markets. The second is that the amount ploughed back into the business would be reduced. Such a policy would be fatal. The cost of replacement to-day may often be two or three times as high as the price at which plant and machinery were bought. Already many firms face ruin because of the Treasury ruling that depreciation may be reckoned for income tax purposes only on the cost of acquisition, and not on the cost of replacement. The sop thrown to them in the Budget, which is not even retrospective, does not go nearly far enough. To raid the reserves set aside for re-equipment, development and expansion would wreck our hopes of maintaining industrial output, let alone of increasing it.
Is there any other form of taxation which would bring in something like one-sixth of the national income, required for the social services without, of course, hitting Socialist electors? Your Lordships will no doubt have observed that some thoughtless individuals, anxiously seeking some sand in which to bury their heads—perhaps I might call them "economic jay-walkers"—have tried to revive the old nostrum of the capital levy. Envious people, who cannot bear to see anybody rewarded for postponing the enjoyment of his earnings or risking his savings, of course love to gloat over the prospect of robbing people, who have been more thrifty than they themselves, of their property. I do not deny that these embittered persons might derive a certain amount of sadistic satisfaction in watching such a process, but no one capable of logical thought can possibly pretend that it would help in any way to find the annual revenues needed to finance the social services.
After all, what is capital? In the main it consists of real assets, such as factories,
250
houses and so on. How can you make a levy on these? You could confiscate them, of course. If they were producing revenue, you could take the revenue and use that, but you could achieve the same result by taxation of income and, as we have seen, there is not nearly enough to do any good in this direction. But that does not seem to be the idea. The people who propose a capital levy seem to hope to use the confiscated capital to finance the social services. Is the plan that the Government should offer a dentist a millionth share in Blenheim Palace, or a certificate in Harrods Stores, as payment for making a set of false teeth? It would be about as much use to him as his share in British railways or, for that matter, in the Palace of Westminster. The dentist has to pay his grocer's bill. If he offered to transfer to his grocer his share of Blenheim Palace in settlement of his monthly account, he would get a very "dusty" answer. Neither the dentist nor the grocer can afford to lock up his working capital in share certificates.
Unless you imagine that these weird certificates might become some sort of subsidiary currency—in which case you might as well print a lot of £1 notes and have done with it—a capital levy can be used to pay running expenses only if somebody can be found with liquid money ready to buy the assets and pay cash for them. But, quite apart from this, where are the hordes of rich "mugs" to come from, with money in the bank waiting to buy capital assets which have just been confiscated from their predecessors? No rich man can save money at the present rates of taxation; nor can anyone be expected even to try to do so with the threat of a capital levy hanging over his head. Only if the amount raised is small, compared with savings seeking investment, can a levy on capital make any contribution to annual expenditure. The same is true of death duties. And, far from there being savings seeking investment, the danger seems to be that, in the future, savings will be far below the level of what ought to be invested if industry and trade are to flourish and expand. The sur-tax payers, as we have seen, are in no position to accumulate anything appreciable, nor are the middle classes, whose real income has been practically halved.

251
There remain the poorer section of the community with less than £500 a year. Can their savings make good the inability of the richer groups to invest with taxation at its present level? After all, they dispose of practically three-quarters of the personal income left after direct, but not of course, indirect taxation, has been levied. This fact may perhaps surprise some noble Lords, but it emerges quite clearly from Table 9 of Command Paper 7649. All the same, I do not think we can expect these poorer people to do very much in the way of investment. What incentive have they to save when they are insured against all the hazards of life by the various social services? And can you really expect them to, with beer at 1s. 2d. a pint and cigarettes at 2d. each?
Thus, penal taxation conspires with the social services to discourage saving. Far from there being private stores of liquid money waiting to be mopped up directly or indirectly by capital levies and similar expedients, there is a grave risk that there may soon not be enough to keep industry in a healthy condition. This will be a serious menace if the Government's grandiose investment plans are to become an annual feature. As I have said before, they seem to me exaggerated. If production is really as high as the Government claim, we may in the not too distant future find that we have built up manufacturing capacity which cannot be kept fully employed, especially in the basic industries. Consumption has been artificially swollen in many directions by the need to fill up the pipe-line and to replace stocks. Indeed, so far as I can make out, the Survey indicates that something like 7 per cent. of the national effort went into this in 1948. This process will presently be completed. And, when it is, there will be a great fall in demand. This stage, I am told, has now been reached in America. I trust the Government are watching the position carefully. Otherwise, they may be faced with considerable unemployment in the factories they are so hopefully erecting.
If the majority of the electors desire social services costing 18 per cent. of the national income, they are entitled to have them. But it is plain, as we have seen, that they will, and actually do, have to pay for them themselves. The
252
money cannot be found by higher profits taxes or a capital levy. And as for raising income and sur-tax, why, if we were all charged at 20s. in the £ for every penny over £10 a week, it would not produce a third of the sum required. It is only fair that wage-earners should know this and realise that it is their money which is at stake. If they did, they would be grateful rather than resentful when the Conservatives try to curb the lush and lavish expenditure by which Ministers seek to commend themselves to the electorate.
The National Health Service is deservedly very popular. If the beneficiaries realised that it costs each wage-earner 5s. out of his pay-packet every week, they might be a little more doubtful as to whether all the claims for wigs and brassieres and the like for foreigners as well as British subjects should be granted without question. The National Insurance and Assistance Boards are admirable institutions. Nobody wishes to reduce their activities. But the worker should understand that he pays about 5s. 8d. a week over and above the cost of his stamps in the form of taxes on beer, tobacco, pools, betting and so on, to maintain them. Food subsidies take another 9s. a week out of the pay packet. It may be right that the wage-earner should pay an extra 9s. a week for his smokes and drink and 9s. a week less for food for the family—his wife, at any rate, might very likely think so. But he ought to know what he is doing. If he did he would be able to say whether he would rather pay an extra twopence or fourpence or whatever it may be for his packet of twenty cigarettes and let the Government use the money to keep down the price of food, or leave the price of cigarettes alone and pay 1s. 2d. a week extra for the family's food.
The Chancellor has tried to bring home these elementary facts to the country. If the manual workers really comprehend that they must regard the social services as part of their consumption and that they form part of their standard of life, if they recognise that to have these amenities they must go without something else which they could otherwise enjoy, and if, with this knowledge and prepared for these sacrifices, they elect to have the benefits of the social services, well and

253
good. But part of these sacrifices are indirect taxes and purchase tax, and it is illogical to try to offset them by insisting on higher wages. There is only a finite pool of man-hours of effort to be shared out. Anything extra in building schools or hospitals or the like means so much less for clothing or household ware, or whatever it may be. Higher wages all round will not increase the individual's share one iota.
There are fewer than a million people in these islands with incomes over £500 a year after tax is paid, and under 200,000 with more than £1,000 a year. Rightly or wrongly, these are the people who run the country's business. A few of them no doubt get these higher incomes, two, three or four times the average, and give little service in return. Some may obtain them by methods we all deplore. But we must not let the existence of a few spivs, eels, butterflies or whatever is the zoological term of opprobrium in fashion blind us to the fact that the vast majority of these people are being paid these higher salaries on their merits, because they are able to make a contribution worth far more than their salary to the country's needs or desires and because no one else seems able to do it better or more cheaply. Without men able to organise or administer, to cure the sick or invent new machines or processes or whatever it may be, the country's production would atrophy.
On the whole, the people earning more than the average are the ones whose brains or industry have raised them above the average. They are the managerial class which is always being exhorted to improve methods of production. If they are the highest paid they are also the most valuable members of the community. They should be encouraged in every way to use their talents to the full. Rewards and incentives which induced them to exert themselves would pay a handsome dividend to the nation. But I realise that the Socialist Party, which has risen to power largely by attacking the rich and successful—I really do not know why—might find it a little difficult now to encourage them. After all, most of us are trying to earn a living. Why should we resent the fact that some are better at it than others? Without them our affairs would stagnate. They are the catalysts which determine the rate at
254
which the country's business proceeds. In a democracy with universal suffrage they can, of course, always be outvoted. And if the majority have been brought up to envy and hate anyone who is more successful than themselves, they can easily be disheartened, suppressed and ultimately destroyed. This seems to be the road we are travelling. The main part of their earnings is confiscated; they are held up to obloquy and contempt—unless, of course, they are Labour officials or camp followers. They have been described by a leading Minister as "vermin," which implies, if his words mean anything, that they deserve to be exterminated.
Of course, if that is their intention the majority can no doubt achieve it. But if the million people or so who run the country's business are despoiled and liquidated, the short-term gain in cash will be negligible, whilst the long-term loss in efficiency will be utterly disastrous. The wheels of industry will slow up, output will sink and the general standard of life will fall. "Omnipotent Parliament" can no more defy the laws of economics than it can defy the law of gravity. A nation can consume only the equivalent of what it produces, unless it can beg, Morrow or steal part of some other country's output. Since the war, generous capitalist America and our warm-hearted fellow citizens in the Dominions have granted us immense subventions in the most valuable form. To a great extent, this has concealed our parlous economic state. But we cannot count upon this sort of charity for many more years. Whether we like it or not, we shall have to devote in future 6 or 8 per cent. more of the national product than before the war to making exports to pay for our imports.
Rightly or wrongly, the Government are apparently determined to invest a good deal more of the national wealth every year than we did previously. If we are to continue the present shorter hours of work and existing restrictive practices, and yet devote a further 10 per cent. or so of the national effort to these social services, then there is no alternative but considerable austerity in other directions. Until the country manages to produce a great deal more, or agrees to spend a great deal less, Misery Budgets will be the order of the day. It is most unfair of people to grumble at being asked to

255
pay for what they have ordered. The grievance, if any, is that they were misled as to the price, or even given to understand that they were "having it on the house." But that grievance lies against Socialist propagandists in general—and the most vociferous of them are often the loudest grumblers now that they find they have to pay the bill.
My Lords, there are many other general economic questions I could have raised. There is the question whether a country can for long avoid inflation and whether industry can flourish if two-fifths of the country's income is taken in the form of tax. There is the efficiency of nationalisation which has recently been brought home to people very vividly by their electricity bills. There is the need to stabilise exchanges so that multilateral trade will help to balance the dollar deficit. There is the remarkable co-operation of the sterling area to save dollars. There is the folly of investing large sums in labour-saving machinery without making sure that the workers would take advantage of the new facilities. There is the delay in introducing the agricultural expansion plan which we have advocated for so long. All these matters I have discussed frequently before, and I will not weary your Lordships by embarking on them to-day. After all, as Anatole France said, "The art of being a bore is to say everything."
The general outlook has improved in some ways but has worsened in others. The foreign situation has been lightened by the Atlantic Pact and darkened by events in China. Our increasing exports bid fair to pay for our imports. But the sellers' market is on the wane. Rising wages are raising costs of production; and the means of paying for imports from the Western Hemisphere are yet to be found. In home affairs the Lord President seems to hope to substitute for the delaying powers of your Lordships' House, the veto of Transport House, and the financial supremacy of the House of Commons seems to be called in question by the claims of outside bodies to a final word about Budget proposals. Failure to understand the rudiments of economics is causing unfounded resentment amongst large numbers of manual workers. Restrictive practices, threats of strikes and go-slow action abound. Perhaps the most hopeful portent is that the
256
Chancellor seems clearly to have recognised the fact that the country can consume only what it produces, and that he is trying to convert his colleagues to this somewhat old-fashioned opinion. If he succeeds, and if they, in their turn, can bring it home to their followers, unrest and disturbance in the industrial world may be avoided and the country may be able to struggle through to a brighter future. It is a testing time for Democracy, and the next five years will show whether it can survive in these troubled times. I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, as usual, we have all learnt a great deal from the noble Lord's exposition of figures, both of some that have appeared and, as he pointed out, of some which have apparently not appeared. Of all the items of recondite information which he has elicited there is one of which I must say I was quite unaware that was that the National Health Service Act would provide brassieres and wigs. That, of course, is a most valuable hint for all of us to follow, although I agree that with regard to wigs, some of us need to follow it more than others! I do not know whether the National Health Service Act specifies the sort of wig which may be obtained free of charge, but it may in certain directions be a valuable professional asset which, presumably, will not be taxed. But it was not on the general line adopted by the noble Lord that I wish to speak, because this occasion seems to me to warrant—certainly in my case—a rather different approach.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD RENNELL: The remark which I just made was not expected to call for the noises which I have just heard, nor did I hope that it would. My real reason for a different approach is quite another, and it is not, perhaps, one which will necessarily be appreciated by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. It is this. We have formed the habit in your Lordships' House of having annually what might be called an economic stocktaking as the result, in the main, of the publication of the Economic Survey. We have had other economic debates on particular points which have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and which will no doubt be touched on hereafter—notably on the Finance Bill and the specifically

257
financial aspects of the present situation. But the main economic debate in your Lordships' House has taken place, as I say, about this time of the year, as the result of the publication of an economic White Paper, and in that respect this debate to-day follows the precedent of two or three previous years. Why this date is particularly important to me is that it is probably the last economic debate of this kind that we shall have in your Lordships' House before the General Election. If it is not the last, then the last will take place very near the fateful date.
Moreover, this debate falls at a time when the first year of the operation of the Marshall Plan is coming to an end and when certain debates have taken place in the United States on this year's Marshall Aid programme. I do not see how the economic situation in this country to-day can be discussed, or even thought of, outside the context of the Marshall Aid Plan. After all, it is to that more than to any other single element that we owe the very much better position in which we find ourselves to-day. I say that without wishing in any way to disparage the work that our people, of all sorts and all classes in this country, have done to contribute to this better being. As a matter of fact, the two things are directly connected with one another, because if that improved production to which Sir Stafford Cripps referred—if he is rightly reported in the Press to-day—in a recent speech in Rome, had not taken place in this country in the course of the last twelve months, it appears to me to be at least open to doubt whether our American friends would have been quite so forthcoming in the second year's allocation of Marshall Aid. It is indeed because they have seen—and we in this country must admit to have seen it—the improvement that has taken place as a result of the efforts of our own people.
That is clear from the statistical figures which have been published, not only in the economic White Paper, but in the current monthly abstracts. They are not all satisfactory, or not all so satisfactory as some are. Notably, I think that if we look back over the last two or three years since the nationalisation of the coal industry, it will be idle to pretend that we are not, in all classes and in all political Parties, by and large, disappointed at the results of coal production.
258
It has improved, but, nevertheless, we are still disappointed. I think that fact is undeniable as also it is undeniable—and I hope it will not be denied—that Lord Cherwell's contention that to employ the standard of measurement of 1946 or 1947 to measure the improvement today is really entirely misleading. It is misleading to take a crisis year, compare it with a better year, and say, "We have done very much better." But, making due allowance for all that, it is obvious that there has been a very substantial improvement which, I repeat, is due in part to our own efforts and in part to the very great assistance which we have received from the United States. It is because that improvement has taken place partly by reason of our own efforts that our American friends have been willing to contribute on the same generous scale for next year as they have contributed in the past.
But, haying said that, I think it is reasonable for us to look at our own situation in a rather more optimistic frame of mind than was, perhaps, apparent in Lord Cherwell's opening remarks. I agree that there are many black points and many difficulties. To one or two or those difficulties I hope to refer later in my remarks. But when all the criticisms which we can make have been made, let us present ourselves to the world as a country which since 1945 has made substantial progress and substantial recovery. We see evidence of that every day of our lives. I agree, of course, with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that we still have a great many controls—too many indeed. It may well be that many could have been relaxed. Some of these controls have been referred to in your Lordships' House quite recently. The pleasure of making, maintaining and administering controls still appears to delight the hearts of the many unnecessary offices which are engaged in that pursuit. At the same time, a number of controls and restrictions have, in fact, been relaxed. We know that we can now buy a suit of clothes without coupons. That is a matter of fact. We know that for the past few days we have been able to buy chocolates without points. That is a small thing, I dare say, but it is one which happens to give a great deal of pleasure to a large number of people. We know that in a certain number of

259
trades—trades connected with building for example—a number of restrictions have been removed in regard to the procurement of raw material. All your Lordships who are interested and concerned in agriculture know that to-day it is easier by far to have farm buildings repaired or new farm buildings constructed than it was three years ago.
These things are true, and it is proper that they should be said because it is not right that the rest of the world should think, in spite of what they are constantly being told by speakers in this country of the prodigious effort made by our people, that that effort has produced no result. It has produced results. That is very apparent from the comments which have been made by a number of eminent American spokesmen in connection with the second year's allocation of Marshall Aid from the United States. I would like everyone at home and abroad to go about with a great deal more pride in achievement and much less complaint about the sordid and drab atmosphere in which we know in certain respects we still live. My reason for wishing that arises, if you like to think so, partly from self-interest. How are we to persuade other people—the United States, European countries and many countries who are not on as favourable and as friendly relations with us as they ought to be—that we are what we are, if we are constantly saying that everything is bad and nothing is getting better? We cannot expect people to pay the attention to our foreign policy and our economic policy abroad which they deserve if we go about talking about the bad mess we are in. In business it is elementary that when one tries to raise money one does not go about saying, "Business is awful." One says one is making a certain amount of money, but it ought to be a great deal more. If it is only in the context of our relations with foreign countries, we shall be wise to present our case in as good an atmosphere as we can.
I do not want to give a large number of statistics to show that an improvement has taken place—because I believe that it has taken place, and many of your Lordships will agree with me. That will be seen from the figures in the statistical abstracts and many other publications. But I want to comment on one or two
260
of the difficulties which I think are shown by the figures which have been published. The main difficulty, one to which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred, seems to be that of Government expenditure in the light of prospective taxation. I hope that other speakers who follow me will take up this point more particularly, and therefore I shall not elaborate it. There are two ways of raising more taxation; one, to increase the rate, and the other, to increase production. If income goes up and the tax remains the same, the Government will presumably get a larger revenue. In commercial terms, we shall get a bigger profit from a larger turnover. What is troubling me is that the turnover—the rate of increase in production—is insufficient to carry the commitments which we have undertaken. This is another way of saying what the noble Lord has said, but without emphasis on the sources from which the taxation is to come, and rather with emphasis on the failure of production to keep up and increase at a rate commensurate with our commitments.
In the hope that others will speak about taxation, I will confine my remarks at this point to one aspect—namely, the creation of capital. In the Economic Survey there are a number of estimates of the creation of capital in this country. They are not in themselves very reassuring, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he replies, will be able to comment on some of my remarks. In Table 25 it is estimated that what is called "gross capital formation at home" will amount to £2,330,000,000 in 1949. In the two previous years the gross capital formation has grown from £2,040,000,000 in 1947 to £2,352,000,000 in 1948. With the estimate of £2,330,000,000 for 1949, there has been a slight reduction and not an increase. The account for 1947 and 1948 was balanced by drawing on our foreign investments, but the estimate for 1949 shows a balance by drawing neither on foreign investments nor on investments abroad. The disquieting fact is that the estimate for 1949 is smaller than the figure for 1948.
These figures are borne out by others in the White Paper, and lead one to arrive at a rather unsatisfactory conclusion. In Table 7 there is an estimate of

261
the gross fixed investment in the United Kingdom, which shows, as one would expect, a steady increase over 1947, 1948 and 1949 from £1,465,000,000 to £1,635,000,000 and then to £1,755,000,000. In other words, the directing element of the Government hope and expect to be able to increase the amount invested in fixed investments in the United Kingdom next year by £120,000,000. If my conclusion is right, it is expected that there will be an increase in fixed investments in the United Kingdom of £120,000,000, this year out of a figure of gross capital formation which is lower by £20,000,000.
I am afraid that is not the end of the story. In the White Paper we are given a number of figures of the allocation of capital investment in the United Kingdom, but nowhere can I see how much newly-created capital is expected to be invested overseas. It is a matter of common knowledge that many parts of the world still depend for their capital investment on capital which is created in this country. That applies not only to Colonial territories but also to a number of Dominions. If inter-British territory trade is to go on developing, the capital equipment required for those territories has, in the main, to be found here. Under President Truman's Fourth Point, it may one day he found from the United States, but the machinery for doing that is not there yet. The capital still has to be found here. We know that and have made provision for it. Under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act provision is made for ten-year plans of development in most of the territories, and it is shown that the money required will be derived from certain sources—local surpluses, local savings, some reserve funds and the balance by capital investment from here. Those plans have, I believe, in the main been agreed by His Majesty's Government. In other words, we are committed to find those capital sums from here to implement and carry into effect those Colonial development schemes. I would like to know what is the aggregate of our commitments year by year in respect of those schemes, assuming that the individual territories can find the shares which are attributed to them in the plans.
That, however, is not the end of the story. Your Lordships know perfectly well that there are great development schemes in progress in South Africa.
262
Your Lordships know that the great new gold-bearing area in South Africa is still in process of being proved. It is also in process of being developed, and large sums of money will be required for that development. Those sums of money are required not only for sinking mine shafts and putting in mining machinery, but for building roads, houses and railways, and installing water supplies and all the accessories for a big industrial development in a remote and arid part. Those sums total to a very large figure. One of the reasons for the difficulties which have already arisen in South Africa has been the drying up of the influx of new capital into that country, and mainly from this country, for various reasons into which I need not go. A country in the stage of development of South Africa, with immense future possibilities, must require year by year a substantial contribution of new capital from outside. That has always come from here, and if the development is to continue in the next few years that capital must come from here and cannot come from anywhere else. There are great development schemes in Australia—with regard to meat, to quote only one. If we are to get meat from Australia, capital must be invested there, and that capital can come only from here. I do not want to weary your Lordships with numbers of examples of that sort.
All capital invested abroad from here must be created here in the first instance, and it can be created only by work and by production. The estimates in the Economic Survey show a small decrease in capital formation here, instead of an increase—a very disquieting feature. Have His Majesty's Government in their Survey, and in the allocations of the estimated amount of pew capital which is to be created, made proper provision for overseas investment in British territories and possibly in other countries—although I am talking especially about British territories? If they have not, either one of two things will happen: either those territories will not be developed on the lines which, in approving these development schemes, we have undertaken they shall be developed, or the amount available by investment in this country under the various categories referred to in the Appendix will have to be cut down. The only other possibility is that the creation of capital will increase Very quickly and

263
to much more than the figure forecast for 1949. That is one of the more particular aspects of this problem of high rates of taxation on a given income to which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred, and with which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brand, will deal when he comes to speak hereafter in this debate.
The principal source of anxiety in my mind at present in regard to our economic situation arises from the doubt whether capital is being created quickly enough here to provide for the development to which we are committed, which the Government themselves wish to undertake and about which they express themselves so clearly when they write, on page 14:
"It is the Government's intention to maintain a large investment programme."
One can have all the intentions one likes, but one has to have the resources before those intentions can be carried into effect. That there is some doubt on this point even in official circles is, perhaps, borne out by a statement on page 15, where it says:
"The total stock of fixed capital, whether in the form of buildings or plant, is so large in any highly developed community like ours that total expenditure on maintenance is inevitably very great."
I will come back to that point in a moment.
"Consequently, the resources which can be devoted to new investment are strictly limited."
They certainly are limited, even on the estimates which the Government have made. I wonder whether the programme is not too optimistic, and whether the amount on the plate is not a little in excess of the powers of digestion of the community.
A second matter, which is closely connected with it and which I find disturbing, is the amount required for renewals and depreciation. When we come to discuss the Finance Bill I shall have something to say on the particular aspects of the depreciation allowances in the Budget. I think it is only fair to say to those who may not realise it, that on to-day's costs there is probably not a single industrial company in England that has the resources to carry out replacements, however conservative may have been their distributions in past years. That goes for the most prosperous and certainly, to my
264
personal knowledge, one of the greatest of all industrial companies, not only in this country but in the world. Obviously, that is because costs have risen. But depreciation allowances for years past have been wholly insufficient, and they still are. In other words, the Treasury have tried to take more out of the pot than there was in it, if a sound and proper financial policy was to be pursued. My metaphor is slightly mixed, but I think your Lordships know what I mean. The proposal to increase initial depreciation to 40 per cent. is no remedy whatsoever. It applies to current expenditure, and makes no provision whatever for the factory which was built three or four years ago. That is the problem to-day.
Those signs I do not find reassuring in the Economic Survey. What I find pleasanter reading is the balance of payments with foreign countries. There, frankly, I think a great deal has been achieved. We can see that from the figures published in the table; and those of us who are fortunate enough to have contact with foreign countries and other people can see it in the impression and the situation created abroad. We have for twelve months past been witnessing a slow but steady improvement in the value of sterling in open markets—which are sometimes called black markets but which, nevertheless, do reflect other people's ideas of the value of our currency. There has been a steady improvement from what may be called the low point, where sterling in the United States—admittedly not in large quantities—wasworth about 1.65 dollars to the £, to the point where it is now probably worth about 3.20 to 3.30 dollars, and is, in fact, beginning to look the official rate in the face.
We know, as has been said in technical and financial papers, that sterling has become a scarce currency in many countries. It is as scarce in certain countries as dollars. We know that that is appreciated in America. As your Lordships will have seen recently from the papers, a very influential body of people who take the view (which is largely held in this country) that sterling should not be devalued but should be maintained at this rate, have gone so far as to say that international and world trade cannot recover and cannot be conducted on an increasing basis without the restoration

265
of sterling at these levels to a world international and strong currency. We may have known that, but it is refreshing to know that our friends in America also realize—or this body of them do—that strong sterling is as necessary to them as it is to the rest of the world. They realise that the dream of some woolly-minded or narrow-minded people, that the dollar would replace sterling in all the markets of the world, is not shared by everybody and is an unrealisable ideal—if it be an ideal—and is one which would not be in the best interests of the United States themselves. That realisation can only have come from an appreciation of the improvement in our position.
I close the remarks I have to make with this. We are on the road to improvement. Many of us feel that that improvement could have been more rapid if a number of very serious mistakes had not been made, I firmly believe that the fuel crisis was perfectly avoidable, that it ought never to have happened in a properly conducted administration and that it cost us twelve months' setback. But, with all that, I still believe that we are very much on the upward grade and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said, all those who have contributed to it—management, labour and, equally, the Civil Service in their able administration of these tiresome problems—have real reason to congratulate themselves and, in fact, to take a pride in what has been done.
4.13 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, your Lordships have listened to two very interesting speeches. I shall hope to give your Lordships some remarks of a general character, taking perhaps rather a different line from that of both the speakers who have preceded me. Perhaps I shall be not quite so critical as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and I am not sure that I shall be quite so optimistic as my noble friend Lord Rennell. I agree with him in his remarks about taxation. I am not sure that I am so optimistic as he is on the question of our balance of payments.
I want to stress certain points which have not been dealt with very fully, either in the White Papers which we have had before us or in the Chancellor's Budget speech. The Chancellor is, I am sure, fully aware of all the problems that I am going to mention, but I do not think
266
he wished to say too much in his Budget speech. It struck me (perhaps I am not quite fair) as somewhat like the advice of a psycho-analyst given to an audience, some of whom he thought were still suffering from certain illusions, and therefore he did not want to say too much at the outset. But I think the Chancellor showed great courage in his Budget—and, indeed, courage was essential. I agree that the country has done a great deal under his guidance. Production is very considerably up, and what is the most striking achievement, as Lord Rennell said, is that we haw for the time being achieved an overall equilibrium on our balance of payments. That is certainly something we could not have expected to achieve whet we looked at our position two years ago, or even one year ago. But, as other speakers have said, we have always to bear in mind that this achievement is based entirely on Marshall Aid, and that Marshall Aid goes on only until 1952. It is also, to my mind, to a great extent the result of a unique sellers' market, which we shall not have with us so very long. The real test, in my opinion, will come during the next two or three years.
Our most formidable problem, of course, is the dollar gap, and that may be becoming rather more than less formidable at the moment. It is true that we have increased our exports to the United States, and we have still more largely increased our exports to Canada. I think our exports to Canada last year were 300,000,000 dollars, which is certainly a great achievement. But prices in the United States are falling, and although those falls, particularly in raw materials and food, may be transferred to this country after a period of time, it is not the case at present that our prices are falling and, of course, the fact that the United States prices are falling and ours are not presents an added difficulty to our exports. Furthermore, the dollar scarcity itself, in a curious way, creates a strong protective element in favour of our exports to the rest of the world. Our exchange control, and the fact that we are able to afford only a few dollars to the rest of the sterling area, means that they have to buy from us and cannot buy from the United States. In consequence, it is easier and more profitable for our exporters to sell outside the dollar area

267
and inside the sterling area and other non-dollar parts of the world.
I would like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether some part of the exports included in our total sum are unrequited exports. I think they must be. I mean such exports as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred—for instance, machinery for the ground-nuts scheme in Africa. If so, this appears in our export figures as going towards paying for our imports. But in so far as unrequited exports are included, while it may obviously be very beneficial to export this capital, the figures become to some extent misleading, so far as our actual capacity to pay for our imports is concerned. We also allow countries with sterling balances in this country—built up either during or after the war—to use some amounts of them to buy exports. To that extent also, I suppose, our exports are unrequited and we do not get payment for them. These two influences, the dollar scarcity, together with this use of unrequited exports, tend to cause us to build up a rather high-cost protected area in the rest of the world to which our exporters are naturally encouraged to export rather than to the United States. This is a danger to a wider multilateral trade—and it is only on the development of multilateral trade that we can ultimately survive. These are tendencies against our dollar exports; and we cannot live without our dollar exports, because we cannot live without our Western Hemisphere imports. And while there are other difficulties—and this is the point I wish to stress—in the way of selling great amounts of imports in the United States and Canada, one of the most important influences is the question of cost. It is vital, therefore, that we should do everything we can to keep the cost of our exports to the United States and Canada down to the lowest possible level.
The dollar problem, therefore, is not to my mind at all solved, and I do not think it is soluble by direct trade. We can solve it only by finding other countries whose exports the United States will buy, and then by trading ourselves with those other countries and getting the dollars that they have earned to pay for our imports from the United States. It may be that certain invisible exports will help us very much in
268
the future. We have heard to-day a good deal about oil refining, and it may be that in the next few years the oil that we can sell for dollars will do a great deal to help towards balancing our position with the United States, though I do not know to what extent.
If we look at the conditions in the rest of the world, the bear points, if I may put it like that, in our future trade with them are that we have to recognise that there will be a diminution in the sellers' market, and also that we shall certainly have to face competition from quarters from which we do not have to face it at present; and particularly from Germany. Again, therefore, the question of comparative costs is all-important. These are the external problems that are vital to us. I should like to summarise them. The question is, how we can keep our costs competitive, both with the rest of the world and with the sterling area; how thus we can maintain our reserves; how we can deal with unemployment, if our exports do fall; and how, in worse times, when we must expect a fall in revenue, we can keep our financial equilibrium when the last straw of taxation (which is what in my opinion it is) has already been placed on the camel's back.
This is where I come to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, stressed—namely, the question of high taxation. I have stressed these problems because they are, in my opinion, the real problems of a welfare State. I do not think that welfare depends upon nationalisation; nor do I think it depends on welfare schemes, when they have reached the point of involving taxation so high as to be damaging, to our whole economy. It is here that the question of costs of our exports reacts on our external policy—in fact, in determining our internal policy we in this island have to have constant regard to its effect on the external. To ignore this is still, I think, the weakness of some Socialists, as it was in 1931. In fact, one can almost say that until the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office, the Government did not have any regard to this problem. It is impossible to say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had the greatest regard to it. But even he has concurred until now in a great increase of expenditure, leading to increased permanent taxation—although

269
now, when (as I think) it is late, he has said there must be no more expenditure and no more Supplementary Estimates. We have, in fact, reached the time when we must come to a halt.
I do not mind so much the temporary taxation, aimed at providing us with an anti-inflation surplus. Such taxation is necessary; but it is temporary, and it is reversible. Permanent taxation is quite a different matter. The need for permanent taxation, if I am right, has increased since the Estimates of 1948–49 by £332,000,000; that, I think, is the increase in the 1949–50 Estimates. Of course, that figure includes Supplementary Estimates for 1948–49. That huge additional expenditure is due to defence, in a minor degree, but must largely be due to the free health services, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated at £260,000,000. The seriousness of this great increase is enhanced by the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which are undoubtedly true, to the effect that we must expect a further considerable increase in social welfare expenditure in the course of the next five or ten years.
The Chancellor went on to say that what was distressing to him was that one could not say the same about the revenues, which, of course remained uncertain. The outlook, therefore, so far as our Budget is concerned, is particularly serious. I regard taxation as rather like some medicines—necessary, perhaps salutary up to a point, but beyond a certain point becoming definitely poisonous. It is for this reason that I regard the free health scheme, however admirable anyone may think it, as against the interests of the community at this particular moment. I think it should at least have been delayed until our total production was higher, and we saw our way more clearly.
Our permanent irreducible taxation is too high for our present production. Moreover, it is imperative, with times as they are, that we should have some reserves of taxable capacity. We do not know what is going to happen with regard to Marshall Aid; we do not know what we may have to provide for defence; we do not know what losses of revenue we shall suffer if the world becomes somewhat more deflationary instead of, as it has been in the last few
270
years, inflationary. Here, I am saying only what, in my opinion, both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council have said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear to all his hearers that, if we had these social services, we should have to pay for them, and that they had reached the limit. The Lord President the other day went further on the B.B.C. and said (I am not quoting his exact words but they were to this effect) that in fact we could not maintain existing social services without greater production. In fact, as the Americans say, we had "beaten the gun" so far as the social services were concerned. We have behaved rather like a banker who makes advances hoping that the funds with which to make them may come into his possession later.
I regard taxation at this present height as definitely inflationary. The reasons are obvious. It is, I think, the universal view in industry that taxation as it now is saps the desire for maximum effort in the case of the wage-earner, and that it reduces incentive in the case of all others engaged in production. For instance, risk-bearing enterprise—that is, the taking of risk of profit or loss—is hardly worth while at this moment. It is directly inflationary if it tends, as it appears likely to do, to bring pressure for higher incomes all round. It is inflationary because it influences the ordinary man to spend on consumption what he otherwise might have saved. It is inflationary because it forces those with capital to live on capital. This tendency is now extremely widespread, and it will be increased again by the increase in death duties. Ultimately—and this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell—excessive taxation unduly depletes industrial capital, and this again lessens production. If I am right in these arguments, it is at this point of taxation particularly that internal policy affects external. It adds to costs and militates against exports when it is vital that we should have a large increase in them.
There may be a danger that we may price ourselves out of the market. Hitherto, exports have shown great strength, but with the lessening of the sellers' market we cannot be sure whether we shall have so easy a time in future. If conditions change adversely in the outside world, can we adjust ourselves? We

271
are now economically the most rigid community in the world, and we find the greatest difficulty in making changes or in adjusting ourselves to new situations. There are also considerable influences, apart from taxation, which are leading towards higher prices. For instance, we have seen ominous rises in the case of both coal and steel. The ultimate danger to a community like ours, if we are or become a too high-cost economy, is that our reserves will diminish and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly said, the diminution of our reserves cannot be permitted. We must always remember that our reserves are not simply our own possession. They are the reserves also of the whole sterling area. Our existing reserves of gold and dollars are, in fact, the nerve centre of our whole economy. Any diminution of the reserves would be a sort of ultimate red light saying "Stop."
Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell said, a good many people in high places in the United States, I think, believe that if our exports are over-costly that might easily be cured by devaluing sterling. I believe such people to be quite wrong. Of course, if prices were to fall heavily in the United States and do not or cannot be made to fall enough, or quickly enough, in this country, or elsewhere in Europe or in the non-dollar world, then the dollar would become definitely undervalued as against all other currencies, and some adjustment might be required. But even that would not help any country, in so far as it allowed its wages and salaries to rise proportionately to any rise in prices. Moreover, if we leave aside the dollar area, it is certain in my view that devaluation of sterling would not help us against the non-dollar countries. I cannot conceive that, if we devalued, other countries would not devalue also within a few hours. If that were so, we should be exactly as we were. If our costs here were already on a proper level in relation to the other countries, they would remain so. If they were too high, they would still be too high.
I do not think that any political Party or the world of economists have any clear ideas as to what we should do if we ever had to take steps to protect our reserves. I have read the recent Labour programme, Labour believes in Britain,
272
to find out what the Labour Party think on this particular point. What the pamphlet has to say is this:
"Constant adaptability will be necessary to cope with changes in world economic conditions. The Government must be constantly ready to deal with any emergency."
Their remedies are as follows:
"(1) Purchasing power and production must march together."
That is not much good in these difficult times, because what is needed is not purchasing power in this country but purchasing power abroad. If purchasing power in this country were increased too far, it would put up prices and make it more not less difficult to sell exports. Then, the publication says:
"Women must get equal pay."—
I do not think that that has a great bearing on our gold and dollar reserves. The third remedy offered is this:
"Finance must continue to be the servant and not the master of employment policy. Control of investment and public ownership of the Bank of England safeguard the industry of the nation against the whims of financiers who brought misery to millions in pre-war days."
I do not think that is exceedingly helpful, and I must say that it sounds to me as if Dr. Dalton were the author. In former days in case of crisis, what the author calls "the whims of financiers" took the form of an increase of bank rate and a restriction of credit to restore our reserves.
So far as I know, the country now has no plan. I do not impute great blame to anybody in particular, but I think the country ought to have a plan. If you have no idea what you are going to do in these new-managed currency days, when the bad time comes it is rather like contemplating that you may have to fight a war sometime but without having the slightest idea how you will fight it. I do not ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to give me his plan. I have some ideas as to what the plan ought to be, but those ideas might be unwelcome to him, and I agree the subject is immensely difficult.
Your Lordships may say that in complaining of the effects of taxation I am crying over split milk. That, I fear, is largely true. All Parties have, I think, in the main, accepted the policies which have involved the very high taxation. It

273
is now becoming recognised that the maintenance of the benefits provided, as well as our external stability, depends—as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and I think Lord Cherwell., said—on a greater, perhaps much greater, production. But greater production also depends more than anything else on what I might call "the geese who lay the golden eggs." In using that phrase I am not referring to Ministers; I mean all the creative, organising, risk-taking enterprising influences in the nation. Nor would I like to label them "the managerial class." I think the managerial class is a highly valuable class, but it is not the risk-taking class. That class is something quite different. It is risk-taking that is required. But in order to take risks, one must have something to take them with—one must have some risk-taking capital.
From this point of view it is worth while asking what sort of a world we have produced with taxation permanently at its present height. I feel it is a world where it would be almost absurd for anyone who reflects to take financial risks—that is, to take the risk of loss as well as profit, considering what is left of the profit, if he makes it, and what he bears of the loss if he incurs it. It is a world, therefore, where enterprise must be at a very heavy discount; where no young man can build up capital; where "risk-savings"—and this is a very important point—look like becoming almost nonexistent, because the saving classes, the capitalist class (let me call them "the rich"), are almost taxed out of existence. They are also now blamed, because they do not save, and because they live on capital. But the poor things cannot do anything else, unless they change their whole mode of life and, for instance, dismiss everybody they have had in their service for years, and so on. Therefore there are no savings in that class, and I do not think there will be. I think it is a world, too, as Lord Rennell said, where, however high may be the profits which industry is making, with taxes and depreciation allowances as they are at present, industry's resources will prove insufficient for its needs.
I was very much struck the other day by the speech of the Chairman of the Cunard Company. As your Lordships will have seen, he pointed out that to build either the "Queen Mary" or the
274
"Queen Elizabeth" would now cost at least £15l,000,000, whereas each cost £5,000,000 before the war. The Company's depreciation allowances, however, are based on a cost of £5,000,000, and not upon £15,000,000. One can understand what is the effect on all industries of a situation like that. I suggest, therefore, that it is more useful to consider how the geese can be induced to lay more eggs than to pursue nationalisation plans or other hinderances to enterprise.
High taxation, I admit, presents difficulty in finding immediate remedies. That is just why the problem is so serious. But at least I think it is unnecessary to do as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury did in the Budget debate—roughly, to tell the geese that they might consider themselves lucky to be alive at all, and that anyhow many more eggs were likely to be taken from them. Geese governed entirely by instinct would, I believe, after a time stop laying altogether. But the geese I am talking of, while they have instincts, also have patriotism, and I am sure that all patriotic citizens, whatever their opinions, should and will support the Chancellor in his effort, which must be made successful, to hold back increased costs. The future—and it is happenings in other countries that will largely determine our future—will indicate how far the anxieties that I have expressed have substance.
4.47 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, in the observations which I venture to offer to your Lordships, I do not propose to follow—indeed, I could not—the line of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. My determination to intervene for the first time in a debate on the subject of economics was dictated rather by the thoughts which always come to my mind when I see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, associated with a debate on the economic situation in this House. If I may say so, with every respect to his great knowledge and ability, whenever I see the two things, economics and Lord Cherwell, associated on the Papers of this House, I have the picture of a grave prophet standing on the banks of the river crying "Woe, woe; we are all undone." Because of the supreme pessimism which the noble Lord always seems to offer us, associated at

275
times with what I may perhaps be permitted to call nineteenth century doctrines, I think some of us ought to try and offer a little twentieth century optimism this afternoon.
I do not want to be so foolish as to suggest to your Lordships that everything in this country of ours is now easy. I know that in the next two or three years a difficult situation may well become more difficult, as markets harden and as we run into difficulties all over the world. But whatever difficulties the Ministers may have to solve in the years ahead, I think we may be doing a disservice if all the time we take a gloomy outlook and spread that feeling of depression amongst the working people of the country; and after all, they are the people who have got to earn the money that we so readily talk about. I would rather take a leaf out of the book of the right honourable gentleman who leads the Opposition in another place, for whom, like so many others, I have the most profound respect as a great war leader, however much I may disagree with many of the views he expresses. He did not go round the country during the war depressing the workers who had a job to do. Whatever private doubts he had in his mind, he stuck out his chin, and he spoke of the ability of Great Britain to see the war through.
What those doubts were we know now, as history comes to be written. Some of your Lordships will no doubt have read what Mr. Morgenthau has recorded, but I would like to remind you of it. He stated:
"While I was in London in August, 1944, Winston Churchill talked to me about Britain's future. He was exceedingly pessimistic. The day the war ended the country would be bankrupt. When Churchill went to Quebec a month later … he pointed out that Britain had expended its economic reserves, its very lifeblood, in the war versus the common enemy, and the abrupt termination of American aid would leave Britain without the resources to reprieve its economy."
While the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Churchill, encouraged the workers to go on working to produce for victory, he realised the difficulties which had to be faced. And the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, whose great abilities, as displayed on the Front Bench opposite, we all appreciated, was also in no two minds at that time. He was rendering signal
276
service to the country as a member of the Government and he reminded us in 1945 (to use his own words) that
"Before the war Britain was a wealthy nation with vast overseas possessions. We have sold or pawned all of it and become the greatest debtor nation in the world."
He went on to warn us of the difficulties ahead, and urged that there should be a combined operation by the Government, the employers and the employees to win through to the transition stage. But he added that it would take time, and he pointed out that we did not reach full war production until the end of 1942. The task of retracing our steps, he said, would in some ways be even harder.
I make no apologies for reading quotations from the speeches of the noble Lord, because I think we need to have such matters in our minds to give us a general background, so that we can appreciate what sort of a job the present Government had to face when they took office in the difficult year 1945. They had to rely on the workers, and the workers were undeterred by the knowledge of the vast problems which had been posed to them. They were undeterred, notwithstanding that they were tired after the magnificent effort which they had made during the war, and notwithstanding that millions of them had again to be re-deployed in industry. They were encouraged, of course, by the election in 1945 of a People's Government to face up to a programme which entailed cutting out all imports which were not absolutely essential, aiming at the maintenance of a stable value for sterling and attempting what no other European nation has attempted—to invade the American market successfully. In order to achieve those objectives, and despite all that they had suffered during the war, the people of this country were prepared once more to restrict their personal consumption of goods in order that they could build up exports. They were prepared to take every possible step to stop inflation affecting the cost of goods. They were prepared to do all this because they wanted to win through to a position from which they could look the whole world in the face and say: "We have paid."
The workpeople who were producing were helped by the trade unions of the country and, what is more, by the

277
majority of the great employers. The three Parties referred to in the statement of Lord Woolton did come together to do their best in the interests of the country. Noble Lords opposite have their own different views about the right things to be done for this country. So have the trade unions; so have the employers, and so have the workers. But they managed, as we can all manage here, to get together in order to try to secure the balance of payments. I believe that we have a great national ability in this country to get through our difficulties, and whatever may be the difficulties which now face us we are going to get through them. I believe that we may take comfort from the figures of exports which are being announced month by month. I feel that we are entitled to be proud that early in 1949 we can see our exports at 162 per cent. above 1938, higher than the target we set for the end of the year. Both as a result of private talks with members of your Lordships' House, and from hearing what has been said by noble Lords this afternoon, I know that there is great satisfaction at the way in which the invasion of the American and Canadian markets has gone: exports to Canada and the United States over the past twelve months have shown a 50 per cent. increase.
I do not disguise from myself that we have a long way to go to reach that target of £180,000,000 worth of exports which has been set for those markets, but I feel that what we have already done should give us some cause for encouragement. I know that at the moment we sell our goods in Canada at the rate of about £1 per head of the population, while our exports to our friends in Australia are approximately £19 per head. That is some measure of the problem which confronts us. It is at the same time a measure of the huge market which awaits us if only we can capture it. It is also a measure of the great amount of opposition which we may expect in those markets. I think that those who produce here have shown what this country can do. Let me take only one example, which has already been referred to—that of tractors. If we look at the figures we see that whereas we produced no more than 10,000 in a year before the war, in one quarter of last year we exported no fewer than 25,000—a total of £5,500,000 worth of tractors
278
and other heavy agricultural machinery in a year.
I do not wonder that when he went back to America Mr. Hoffman, the E.R.P. Administrator, could make a statement which I think we can all regard as most encouraging. He said:
"I am going back to America with a clear impression that the United Kingdom has made remarkable progress in making good on its pledge of self-help. When I took this job in April it seemed to me that the goals which Britain had set in the first year were quite unattainable. The very gallant and successful fight which Great Britain has put up to build up her exports and hold down imports, and thus achieve financial stability, is one which commands the admiration of the world."
I think we may be proud that we have earned from our American friends, who have given us, and are giving us, all the help they can, the right to tributes of that kind.
I would like to remind the House of one or two of the production efforts which Mr. Hoffman saw when he was here. He was able to see our grain production at 70 per cent. above the prewar figure. He was able to see our milk production reach an all-time record in this country. He was able to see a country which had previously imported combine harvesters not only having learned to produce them but producing them at the rate of a thousand a year. He was able to see a new industry in the production of clocks, an industry created in areas which were once depressed. He was able to see that we now not only make enough for our own needs but instead of importing £1,500,000 worth of clocks into the country each year we now, as the result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, export £8,000,000 worth a year. Every day, in the last twelve months, 1,240 cars, trucks and buses have gone abroad to bring in money that we so badly need. In footwear, cycles, motorcycles and dozens of other products the workers' records of production have gone up, so that it is now running at 25 to 30 per cent.—perhaps 35 per cent.—above the pre-war figure.
One of the reasons why I feel so encouraged and capable of some optimism is the contrast between what I saw after the Great War of 1914–18, when I started my trade union experience, and what 3 see to-day. Then production was less than half the pre-war level, and

279
it took nineteen years, and a rearmament programme, to put it back to the place which it occupied in 1913. I think we are entitled to be proud when the United Nations Survey can point out that the national production effort we have made is unequalled in our history. I welcome the further steps which are being taken by the President of the Board of Trade at the moment to capture the American market. Since your Lordships are debating the economic situation, I do not think it would come amiss if I congratulated all concerned with the organisation of the magnificent British Industries Fair which has opened this week, and also those responsible for deliberately and particularly giving the publicity material the slant for the North American market.
All these attempts are made possible because we have workers who are doing their best all the time. I want to take the opportunity of this debate to say how harmful I think it is, and I know many others share my view, for people to talk as if there were grave slacking among the workers in this country, and as if hours were short. Decrying the efforts of our own people will not help us at all. I welcome the cold douche of realism which came from an American trade union representative on the Anglo-American Productivity Council, when he made a statement to The Times last November. Mr. Walter Reuther said:
"I shared the illusion, which seems quite common in this country as well as in the United States, that the difference in productivity arises from the fact that labour here is not working hard and fast. I believe that if it had the same equipment, tools, plant facilities and raw materials it would match the productivity of American labour. I found that the tempo in the plants I visited was certainly as fast as anything that is customary in the United States."
Of course the tempo is as fast; of course the hours are as long. Indeed, it is true to say that when we survey the hours worked in this country and in America last year, we find, from the most reliable returns, that while the average number of hours worked weekly by workpeople in America was only forty, the average in this country was forty-four; and many worked much more. I need hardly remind those of your Lordships who know something of the steel industry of the magnificent response which that industry has given in working
280
eight-hour shifts right round the clock, month after month.
The same kind of loose talk goes on far too often about the miners, their work and their hours. That is no way to encourage them either. Some of those who are so ready to criticise the miners ought to try their lot for a little while. Let them try living in the miserable houses erected by the pit owners in years gone by, of which they should be ashamed. Let them try going down the pits and working in the narrow seams, in the heat and in the wet. When I drive through mining villages and look at the men squatting outside their houses—squatting because that is the only way to be comfortable after the positions they have had to work in for so many years—I thank God that I have been so fortunate as not to have to work in the pits. And I invite those who criticise the miners to reflect that, unless they are prepared to go down the pits themselves, they are not in a position to tell the miners that they should do more physical labour or work longer hours.
I am glad that the men who work in the pits now have better hours and conditions. It is not their fault that the coal-mining industry has been in a state of crisis over the last thirty years. That has been due to bad organisation, and to the inability of the people to nationalise. I do not pretend that everything in the mines to-day is right, but the trend of production has gone upwards ever since 1945, and it shows every sign of going up further. With the fresh schemes and new shafts, we can look to production giving that extra amount for export which the noble Lord who moved this Motion is so anxious to see—as, of course, we all are. The reasons for the upward trend of production are many, but it is largely due to the fact that the workers are conscious that they are living and working under conditions better than they were twenty, or even ten, years ago.
If we go into the industrial areas and talk to the people, we can obtain their reaction to the lives they lead to-day and those which they led before. Most of us can gain that only from reading the daily Press. From the Daily Sketch of January 26, 1938, I give your Lordships this description of the conditions which the workers could expect as part of their lives just before the war:
"New milk is rarely to be seen on the poor man's table. Babies by the hundred are

281
weaned on condensed milk diluted with water, or crusts are dipped into it for the little ones to suck. … A daily supply of fresh milk does much to build up the bodies and health of children. Social workers agree that in many cases milk is even more important than ordinary food. … Free milk is now being distributed at many Daily Sketch Winter Relief Fund centres in London. Hundreds of gallons are given every week. … The recipients include women recovering from childbirth, convalescents, nursing mothers, consumptives, acute cases of illness being nursed at home, and elderly people who cannot afford the luxury of fresh milk."
People contrast that with the improvements they see coming to them to-day, and many of them will read with astonishment that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seems to think that we can do away with many of the social services and still expect to have the same kind of reaction from the workers. I believe that these improvements are one of the reasons why the history of industrial disputes has been so good since 1945. May I say, as an aside, that I regret that every time there is some little strike there is magnified publicity to make it look as if the workers of the country are striking all the time? In the three years from 1945 to 1948 8,000,000 days were lost; in the three years following the previous war 150,000,000 days were lost, and 100,000,000 of those were in the coal mining industry, to which I have just referred.
I should not like to go on record in this debate as saying that only the workers have benefited from what this Government have done. Private enterprise, which noble Lords on the Benches opposite say they desire to encourage and safeguard, has also had its benefits from the Government's policy. In 1947 22,000 new companies were registered, half as many again as in any pre-war year. That is not a bad indication of the industrial state of this country. Private enterprise is benefiting from the flourishing capital investment programme which the Government and private enterprise together have fostered. May I remind your Lordships that that has amounted to £3,500,000,000, with plans for £2,330,000,000 more in hand—new shafts for mining, electric generators, hydro-electric schemes, extensions of refineries for oil—to which the noble Lord, Lord Brand, referred a few minutes ago—increased building of all types of transport vehicles, and the reorganisation of the iron and steel industry?
282
I fear to worry the noble Lord much more, but dare I say this? Four hundred and thirty-three factories were built from 1945 to 1948; 530 more are being built, and 210 more are being planned. From what the noble Lord said, the Government would have been wrong, whether they had built them or not. If they had not built them, they would doubtless have been charged with failing to do their job in planning for the increase of the export industry. But because they did build them, we are warned that they may be overdoing it, and will run into trouble before long.
I think we are entitled to be proud about these factories, and about all our industries. Those of us who have memories of Jarrow, and the Jarrow campaign of years ago, can be thankful in thinking of what has happened in the field of shipbuilding. To-day, 18,000,000 tons of shipping are owned by Great Britain—nearly one-quarter of the world's tonnage. That is an actual increase over 1939, which shows that we have made good our war losses; indeed, the truth is that we have added 5,000,000 tons since 1945—nor are our shipyards half empty to-day. While in 1938 there were only 750,000 tons under construction in the yards, to-day, with our export orders and our own construction programme, 2,000,000 tons are always in the yards. That is a fairly satisfactory picture. Most of us desire to see yet further improvement; we are anxious to see that nothing is done to disturb this equilibrium. Most of us are satisfied with the wisdom that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, and with the great wisdom he showed yet once again in the speech which he made in Rome yesterday.
I have said most of the things I felt I had to say, but I would like to deal with one other point from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. So often in this House, when I listen to matters affecting Civil Service administration, of which I have had some experience for the last twenty-five years, I find that no matter what the Civil Service did, or what the Government did, it would be wrong. That is certainly true of what the noble Lord had to say about the Government's man-power budget. As General Secretary of the Ministry of Labour Staff Association, I had to deal fairly closely with this particular subject. The first thing I would like to do is to invite Lord Cherwell,

283
to read a little more closely the figures of estimates under the new scheme, especially the footnote; and, secondly, I would ask him to read the paragraph two pages earlier, which explains the new system. The footnote points out that the Post Office staffs are now shown under the word "Communications" in the re-grouping. That will account for 250,000, at least, of the missing bodies which worried the noble Lord.
I would like to explain the reason for the change, to show that whatever had happened the Government would have been wrong. The figures given to Parliament in the past have related to the insured population of the country. Had they been any other figures they would have had to be specially compiled, and that would have meant great difficulty. Parliament has now changed the system of insurance and brought more people in, and the figures have been brought into line with the higher figure of 3,000,000 insured to-day. Had the figures been kept on the old lines, the Government would have been told that they now had new and up-to-date figures which they were wilfully keeping from the country. Indeed, in order to get those other figures they would have had to send out another form, and noble Lords on the opposite side of the House would have complained about the extra form the Civil Service sent out, and about the extra staff in the Civil Service needed to summarise the form when it came back. What has happened is that the commonsense method of giving to Parliament figures on the new basis of insurance has been adopted. The Government have not gone in for some chicanery and jiggery-pokery with the figures, as one would have thought from listening to the speech of the noble Lord.
I am sorry that I have kept your Lordships so long. I had some things I wanted to get off my chest. They were not essentially economic doctrine, but they mean something to the workpeople in whom so often in my ordinary daily life I find such refreshing twentieth century optimism. I wanted to say what a great improvement I think there has been in this country, and how much those workers have done; I wanted to say how much I believe in the workers of this country. Indeed, perhaps I may put it
284
even more widely and say that I believe in Britain.
5.18 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, we have listened to four very well-informed and interesting speeches, and there would be no excuse for us if we were not fully seized of the opinion of the speakers on this complex subject, seeing that the average length of the speeches has been forty-two minutes. I shall not detain noble Lords for anything approaching that length of time, but I would like to ask of the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate one or two questions on matters which rather confuse me. I fully sympathise with the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and agree with him that we must not cry "stinking fish" about the considerable achievements which the nation has accomplished. The optimist is always welcome:
"Laugh and the world laughs with you, Weep and you weep alone,"
is a very true saying. Sometimes I think that in the speeches of politicians of all Parties there is a certain absence of realism. For instance, I did not notice that Lord Rennell made any reference to the fact that we are annually in receipt of a huge sum of foreign charity.
LORD RENNELL: I specifically referred to the Marshall Plan as being one of two important elements for our recovery.
LORD BLACKFORD: Well, I apologise if I missed out that fact, but the noble Lord did not explain how we should stand without the Marshall Plan, and that is the point I was trying to make. Nor did he make any reference to the fact that certain classes in this country are being so over-taxed that a false economic wage basis is enjoyed by the workers. Thirdly, he spoke as if the conditions of exceptional industrial boom which have been prevalent in the last three years were likely to continue indefinitely. One of the questions I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply is what conception he would take of the outlook in the event of industrial slump.
The noble Lord, Lord Brand, laid great emphasis on the necessity for export and, of course, everybody is in agreement with that. But many countries have set a ban upon their imports. We ourselves

285
set a ban upon our imports from dollar countries. We say that we must sell much more to Canada, but that we must import less from her. The condition of restricting imports, whereas every nation wishes to boost its exports, is prevalent throughout the world, and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, if he would be good enough, to devote a few sentences to explaining how world economy is to be conducted on that basis. My belief is that, however ingenious and learned we may he, these questions will eventually he settled for us by a series of strikes. They will be strikes by strikers to whom surrender is inevitable—I refer to strikes of the consumers. When the consumer says: "Your goods are far too dear they are not of sufficient quality and. I will not buy them," then surely you have no recourse but to reduce the price of your goods and improve their quality until the striking consumer will buy them. Reducing that necessity to four words, it means "More work, less pay." That is in direct opposition to the policy upon which the Socialist Party have built up their power and prestige over the last fifty years. It may be taken as axiomatic, therefore, that they certainly will not accept the policy of "More work and less pay" until they have squeezed every alternative orange absolutely dry.
In view of the considerable recovery which was achieved in 1948, and of the fact that companies' reports still coming in based on the year 1948 show very satisfactory and, in some cases, highly increased profits, I should not like to make that gloomy prophecy did I not believe, from a pretty wide acquaintance with industry, that the sellers' market has definitely passed its peak and is at an end except for heavy capital goods. I believe—and I think anybody acquainted with industry through banking and so on will agree—that the sellers' market for consumer goods has definitely passed, and that we must look forward to a period of slump to which we shall have to adjust ourselves. I think there is no question but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with me. He says, as near as any Party politician dare—and he has been saying it for a long time—"More work and probably less pay." In the very opening sentence of his Budget speech he said: "If we are to maintain our social services there must be much more productivity." What does
286
that mean except more work? Although he has never uttered those four disagreeable words as I have, yet I submit to noble Lords that that has been the burden of his cry for the past two years.
Now it stands to reason, as I said before, that nobody on the Socialist Benches is likely to accept that until every alternative has been tried, and therefore some of their brightest minds are looking about for alternatives. Their brightest rising star, Mr. Harold Wilson, has been pleased to give us the benefit of his alternative. He says, "Recapture the spirit of the merchant adventurers." Now what was the spirit of the merchant adventurers? It was the profit motive, unadulterated and unashamed though not always undefiled. It is odd to find a Socialist Cabinet Minister coming forward and extolling the profit motive as a virtue to be recommended, whereas so many of his other colleagues—more vociferous and raucous than he—denounce the profit motive as being a vice attributed to capitalist exploiters and, therefore, to be destroyed and condemned. The last time I was at the Marble Arch, some three or four Sunday afternoons ago, I stopped on the edge of a crowd who were listening, to a gentleman whom I have seen and heard speaking on occasions during the last twenty years. As I paused, he delivered himself of this remark: "There is no word I hate so much as 'Efficiency.' It is the duty of every worker to do as little work as possible and to get as much money as possible for doing it." In front of him on We little platform was a painted placard marked, "The Socialist Party of Great Britain." I assume, therefore, that funds which noble Lords opposite are so fortunate in drawing from the T.U.C.—
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Lord has been listening to this gentleman for twenty years, he must, be well aware that his doctrines are not those of the Labour Party. He belongs to the Trotskyite Party, and really there must be no confusion between the Trotskyite Party and the Party of His Majesty's Government. I should have thought the noble Lord would have known better.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord confute him next Sunday?
LORD BLACKFORD: There may be some truth—
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope the noble Lord will accept that what I have said is true. There is not some truth in it, but 100 per cent. truth.
LORD BLACKFORD: Of course, what the noble Lord says is true—that goes without saying. But he will admit that it is exceedingly confusing for the ordinary passer-by in Hyde Park to hear such doctrines enunciated, and to find written on the placard, "The Socialist Party of Great Britain," because a layman would be apt to think that such a person as Lord Pakenham belonged to it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily, but it is very confusing for members of the Labour Party to find a very reputable gentleman named Sir Waldron Smithers sitting in another place as an official member of the Conservative Party, because we are told that we must not use Sir Waldron Smither's opinions as examples of the kind of doctrines to which the noble Lord and his Party are committed.
LORD BLACKFORD: I am afraid I cannot enter into further argument about what happens in another place in regard to one of the members of the Conservative Party. What I wanted the noble Lord to do in his reply, if he will be so kind, is to produce some coherence out of these conflicting statements. His colleague, Mr. Harold Wilson, on the one hand, says, "Recapture the profit motive," and his colleague, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, on the other hand, says, "Destroy the profit motive." I should be obliged if the noble Lord could tell us where he stands between those two comrades of his on that matter.
But there is another aspect. It must be admitted, of course, that merchant adventurers have had their ups and downs. The successful Sir Francis Drake was knighted on his own quarter deck by Queen Elizabeth—who did not forget to take a considerable rake-off from his prize money, no doubt at the suggestion of her Chancellor, a distinguished forbear of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. The unsuccessful Sir Walter Raleigh had his head cut off by James I, no doubt at the instigation of his Chancellor—another distinguished forbear of the same distinguished Marquess. But throughout the centuries merchant adventurers have had
288
a pretty good wicket, until the arrival of Mr. Harold Wilson and his colleagues. Mr. Wilson says, "By all means go into merchant adventuring. If you lose you go bankrupt and that would be too bad; but if you succeed we take nine shillings of every pound you make, and the more successful you are in making the money, the more we shall take. And if you are very successful indeed we shall take nineteen shillings and sixpence of every pound; and every few years we shall come along and take a 'once for all' levy, so that we shall take more than nineteen shillings and sixpence in that particular year. And if you manage to save any money—which seems extremely unlikely—we shall take a large proportion of it when you die, so that you will not be able to hand anything much on to your family."
And we have not yet arrived at the limit, because some of the young and competitive "bright particular stars" of the Socialist Party have been telling us quite plainly that their idea is that whereas the limits of taxation may have been reached, the limits of dividing capital have by no means been reached. Both Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Jay, who is also a competitor for political advancement, have plainly said that if they are returned to power next year, their idea is to have a capital levy. So it must be admitted that the outlook for merchant adventurers is decidly bleak, and it is not surprising that young merchant adventurers tend to look to other countries, where they are regarded with a more smiling eye. They leave other young men in this country to occupy velvet seats in security; they doubt whether, if the present tendencies continue, there will be any money to pay the pensions to the occupants of those velvet seats.
Is there no way in which the Government can reduce this discouragement to merchant adventurers? There are several ways, with mention of which I need not detain your Lordships, but there is one essential way and that is by the alleviation of taxation. Now, when anyone mentions that, the first thing that his listener, if he be a Socialist, usually says, is, "What economies would you make? I suppose you would cut down the social services." One can well understand a responsible Minister in another place having to be careful what he says;

289
but in this House one has the great advantage that one can say exactly what one thinks, and therefore I say that if I were in charge of affairs I would keep the food subsidies at £370,000,000—a reduction of just about £100,000,000 on the figure of £465,000,000. It is said that the pegging by Sir Stafford Cripps of the food subsidies has cost the individual household 4½d. per head more per week. Mrs. Mann, the Socialist Member for Coatbridge, appeared to me to squash a good deal of silly chatter by pointing out in another place that, as a matter of fact, the cost of living this year is decidedly lower than it was last year: she mentioned particularly onions, which now cost 4d. per lb. as against 9d. per lb.; and potatoes, as we all know, were considerably cheaper this winter than they were last winter. I should be strengthened in my decision to reduce the food subsidies to £370,000,000 and I should perhaps be protected against adverse propaganda by recollection of the fact that Sir Stafford Cripps, in the Budget debate a year ago when subsidies were £370,000,000, said that they ought not to be allowed to rise any higher. He ought not, therefore, to complain if a Conservative Government were to reduce them to that figure.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask whether the noble Lord is speaking with the authority of his Party and representing the view of his Party? Because it is rather confusing otherwise to try to distinguish between the individual and the Party.
LORD BLACKFORD: I thought I made it clear that I spoke for nobody but myself. I am quite open to be repudiated.
LORD PAKENHAM: Would it be correct to say that the noble Lord is flying a kite?
LORD BLACKFORD: No, I am not flying a kite at all. The noble Lord must not put me off. I was going to refer to the Armed Forces. We all know it is essential that the Armed Forces shall, in these dangerous times, be kept right up to date. But I must say I feel we cannot afford to go on spending £760,000,000 a year on the Armed Forces. I am sure there will be an insistent demand from all quarters of opinion for a reduction of
290
that expenditure at the first feasible moment. And I do not mind venturing the opinion that there is now a considerable waste in all the Services—but Heaven forbid that I should enter into any controversy on that subject! The fact remains that there are a great many Service prejudices which will have to be sunk and there is much planning which will have to be co-ordinated, because I do not believe that in three years' time the nation will allow an expenditure of £760,000,000 on its Armed Services.
But, apart from that, my complaint is of the tendency of the Socialist Party to refuse to consider any idea of economy. The principle upon which they seem to go is, "We want a thing; therefore we must have it." It seams not to matter whether it is necessary or not. Those of us who express these views do not add to our popularity, and we are looked upon as cranks. For instance, I protested recently against the proposed expenditure on the Exhibition which is going to be held in 1951. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, asked for £1,000,000 to spend on roads to get people to the Exhibition. A day or two afterwards I met someone who was going to spend £500,000 on improving the escalator at Waterloo Tube Station for the same purpose. A friend of mine is spending £500,000 on improving the Embankment, also for the same purpose. Since making that little speech, I have made further inquiries about this Exhibition. My contractor friend tells me that a contract has been let for £2,000,000 to build a concert hall, which is nothing to do with the Exhibition to sell British goods for export; the concert hall is purely to amuse music-loving people. That is most desirable in itself—I am all for it—but can we now afford to spend £2,000,000 on building a concert hall?
Moreover, it is going to take 10,000 tons of steel to build that concert hall. What is the allocation of steel this year for the City of Plymouth? In proportion to its size, it is the most blitzed city in the whole of England. The allocation is 750 tons. What is the allocation of steel this year for the City of Portsmouth, another great and much blitzed city? It is 750 tons. I was staying in the same hotel as the Lord Mayor of Portsmouth the other day and he told me that. Yet 10,000 tons of steel are to go on a concert hall. That does not seem to me to

291
be right. It appears to me to be a financial attitude which is really not to be supported at all. Although it is a small matter in comparison with the huge sums with which we are dealing nationally, it is indicative of the mind which moves the Labour Party.
Recently, when I made a little speech, the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, dealt with me very gently; he smiled at me and said, "The noble Lord has got it off his chest now and will feel much better." But when I protested against the Lord Chancellor's desire to spend £1,000,000 or so and use several thousand more tons of steel on building an unnecessary theatre he said that that was an attitude of mind which created slums. I was surprised to hear him say that, because my own attitude of mind is strongly in favour of industry and thrift. That is because I remember two coloured prints which in the days of my youth hung on either side of the mantelpiece of a bedroom at home. The one on the left showed a prosperous, happy man with his well-fed and well-clothed domestic wife and two charming, happy children. Underneath was written, "The reward of thrift and industry." The housing conditions in which that happy family were living were most desirable. On the other side of the mantelpiece was a picture of a starving, miserable man with a tattered, hungry and dirty wife and two wretched quarrelling children. Underneath was written, "The result of sloth and extravagance." Those people were undoubtedly domiciled in a slum.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was even more severe with me when I went so far as to suggest that instead of following the well-known practice of fools, building for wise men to buy at a bargain, we should improvise and use the Gaiety Theatre until such time as the nation could afford to build a theatre on the lines desired. He characterised that suggestion as downright foolish. I must say that I was surprised to hear him say that, because I had recently been behind the scenes at the New Theatre, where a repertory on a large scale has been carried on for the last four years most successfully. I thought the conditions backstage of the New Theatre were most inconvenient and bad, and they could hardly be worse. Therefore I felt rather disposed to protest
292
respectfully against the use of such a severe adjective as "foolish" at my suggestion. Then, on reflection, I remembered that in the days of our youth, when the noble and learned Viscount was a handsome and rising barrister and I was but a simple soldier exiled in India, he had much more opportunity to gain intimate acquaintance with the backstage of the Gaiety and acquire a special knowledge of the building.
I do not expect the Government will economise, because it is a well-known fact about a democracy that they will never take notice until they are frightened. We all remember a statesman who stood up in May, 1940, and said "My policy is blood and tears, toil and sweat"; and the nation fell at his feet and said, "Lead us to it." But that same statesman had been saying for the preceding six years, "Unless you take certain precautions, the result will be blood and tears, toil and sweat." Nobody took any notice of him at all; he was ignored. I was one of the fools who ignored him, a fact which I have never ceased to regret; but it taught me a lesson which I shall also never forget. So when I entered your Lordships' House on the death of my father, after an absence of seven years from politics, I made up my mind that if ever I ventured to address your Lordships, I would always say what I believed to be true. I am convinced that we shall not recover and keep our prosperity without additional toil and sweat. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps on saying, and if we refuse to listen to him now about the toil and sweat which we must inevitably undergo, we shall have to suffer in due course the tears of mass unemployment and the possible blood of Communist revolt.
5.47 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, speaking from these Benches I cannot help feeling sympathy for what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just addressed the House. But, if I may give him a friendly warning, I would beg of him to avoid any reminiscences of theatrical adventures. It is always dangerous to indulge in them, for the worst construction is always put upon it. I had a great deal of sympathy with him in his commiserations with the hard lot of the merchant adventurers, the men of enterprise

293
who to-day have a hard time in this country. When I was in the United States of America, I heard much the same sort of complaints there by men who, by reason of State, Federal and County taxes, were paying more than ten cents in the dollar of their income. I found that it was not a case of young men making a fortune in the United States. It is a hard, sad world, and we must all do the best we can to look on the brighter side.
If I might venture on the herculean task of trying to cheer up the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, may I remind him of the brighter side of the situation, which has apparently escaped him?—and this affects what the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has referred to as the heavy cost of armaments. It has not been mentioned in the debate so far, even by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who I thought restored a great deal of balance to the argument. The international situation is showing signs of great improvement. There is no doubt about that; and it is especially true of Europe. Whereas a year ago serious people were regarding a Third World War, with all its horrors and disasters, as inevitable, only a small minority now think that war will occur; and amongst those are people who desire it. That improved outlook may mean a tremendous difference to the whole business community, including the merchant adventurers, who have still 80 per cent. of the industry of this country to work upon, even after we have completed the iron and steel nationalisation projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, regarded the China situation with some misgivings. After all, I know China, and he knows China. Revolutions are not new there, especially in the course of the last decade or two; and the situation may not be so bad there as it appears. Certainly, events cannot be worse in China, in the light of recent happenings there. If that is the case, then apart from China the whole international situation shows an improvement that is bound to have a good effect upon the general trade of the world. It will restore confidence and will allow people to plan ahead with more certainly than hitherto.
The noble Lord, Lord Brand, shed bitter tears (figuratively speaking, of course) about our expensive National Health service. The one thing that is
294
interesting the Americans at the present time is our National Health Service. The doctors view it with apprehension; the public with hope. There is a great demand in the United States for the Government there to emulate our own National Health Service, and President Truman, great politician that he is, has already made proposals to Congress to that end. So if any of your Lordships is thinking of escaping to America to get away from the horrors of high taxation, of National Health and all the other things that Socialism is supposed have brought about here, you will find not much improvement in the United States.
I would also say this: that though I do not myself agree, except in regard to certain commodities, that there is yet an end to the sellers' market, because it is still a good market for many of our specialities, I am a little apprehensive of cut-throat competition between certain Western European nations, including Germany. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, and others of His Majesty's advisers, are very much alive to this danger. I do not mean fair competition, but real cut-throat competition. I would like to see rather more vigour—and risk if you like—in the development of the economic United States of Europe, as represented in one of its aspects by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. I am glad that in his speech in Rome yesterday Sir Stafford Cripps laid stress upon that. I am also apprehensive about what our American friends are thinking with retard to the revival of Japanese industry. I believe that those apprehensions are shared in Lancashire, and in textile-producing countries generally in Europe, and I hope this matter is being regarded with the seriousness that I suggest it deserves. I can see only one way in the long run to get over this trouble; that is to push on with this economic union of Europe. It is one of those obvious steps that everyone agrees upon but which nobody quite sees how to bring about.
Having listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, I reached the conclusion, without any doubt, that he was against Socialism. But I think it must be remembered that what we mean by Socialism is only planning—and economic planning at that. There is a great deal to be said, to begin with, for a Union of Socialist States of Europe, and

295
those are the States who are prepared to carry out planning. In this connection, too, reference was made by Lord Rennell to development in Africa: he spoke of investments in Africa. I hope that the development of cotton in Africa is being studied. I think it is necessary for the other Colonial Powers to come in, and we have to bring in the Portuguese and also the French and the Belgians. Here is another example of Western European planned economy, co-ordinated in a longterm policy.
I entirely agree with what Lord Rennell has said about the need for the highest possible investment programme; indeed, I think we must all agree with that. In that connection, I would make a suggestion to my noble friend, and through him to the Government, as I have done privately, that every effort should be made to encourage and make it easy for American enterprises to invest in this country if they so desire. Capital investment which comes from a dollar area, is new, and the more of that kind of investment we have, by desirable enterprises, the better. Already there are concessions in the way of convertibility of profits and dividends, and so on, and I hope that everything will be done to encourage this sort of investment in this country. Mention was made by my noble friend Lord Crook of the export of agricultural machinery, such as combine harvesters. That was only made possible because one of the great Canadian manufacturing firms of combine harvesters, Massey Harris, set up an immense factory near Trafford Park at Manchester. That is why we export them from this country, and that is an example of the sort of thing that I hope will increase; and I am sure the Government will encourage it in that way.
My Lords, if I may, I wish to make what I hope is one other useful suggestion. It will be the last, and I will be as brief as possible, as others of your Lordships wish to speak and have more important things to say than I have. In his interesting speech, a good deal of play was made by Lord Brand about the need for reducing the price of our goods in the export markets. My Lords, I believe that it is necessary to put far greater emphasis on maintaining and increasing quality. We shall sell our goods in the hard currency markets, and particularly
296
in North America, primarily on quality. We shall not be able to compete with the Americans in cheap mass-produced goods. We cannot, with their immense domestic markets and with their tradition of mass-production behind them; but in quality we can compete successfully. I cannot find words strong enough to impress the immense importance of this on our people.
I found that view everywhere I went in North America; men in the most responsible positions all stressed that point to me, and begged me to put it before your Lordships at the first opportunity. If we maintain and improve the quality of British goods, we can hold our own in these hard currency markets. Privately, I ventured to make this point as strongly as I could to His Majesty's Ministers, and I make it now as publicly as I can to my noble friend. I earnestly hope that that point will be stressed in all conferences in connection with the export trade, and I have every confidence that the new advisers who have just been appointed are seized of the point. It has a bare mention in the Economic Survey, and I think it could be more stressed. In the quality of our work we in this country are still supreme, and it is this kind of merchant adventuring that will bring us great success and add to our prestige, and that will help us to get over our present difficulties, which I believe we can do.
5.58 p.m.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you many minutes as a good many of the points which I had thought of making have been much more ably made by previous speakers. I should, however, like to associate myself with the remarks of those noble Lords who have urged that the Government should reduce their spending. I feel that the most important thing to regain in our economy to-day is confidence—confidence in its widest sense. It seems to me that possibly the Government underrate the necessity or the delicacy of confidence. It is of little use the Government telling people to increase their savings and at the same time be wildly spending themselves, and meeting that expenditure by increasing taxes. To follow a policy of what is called "cat and mouse" is damaging and unsettling. Cryptic remarks by responsible people, that they might tax this or they might nationalise that, create uncertainty.

297
Even the position of savers seems to me a little obscure. When does one pass from being a desirable saver to being an undesirable capitalist? Is it when you have saved £100 or £1,000, or what? Perhaps one might be given a target, which I believe is the fashionable thing to-day! Indeed, there is very little to encourage a man to save. We all know the difficulties in the way of saving to-day, because of crushing taxation. This matter has already been referred to in the debate, but I think the evils are far more damaging than is commonly realised. We must also face the fact that there has been such a levelling down that in many cases unskilled labour is being paid nearly as much as skilled labour. A tool-maker, for instance, or a skilled man operating a machine, receives very little more than the man who sweeps up the turnings. The cloak-room attendant who collects sixpences free of tax probably makes a gross income far exceeding that of many hard-working professional men. The whole position seems to me to be out of balance there is very little inducement for anyone to be skilled in these days.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred to the necessity for maintaining quality, and I entirely agree with him in that. But I think there is so little inducement now for people to serve apprenticeships to enable them to become really skilled craftsmen that there is a genuine danger of our skilled workers becoming less able than they were in the past; we are relying largely on the knowledge of a previous generation. The angle of taxation is of paramount importance now in any business transaction. I think most directors or managers to-day find, in considering any proposition, that this angle overshadows almost everything else. They have to ask: "Will this attract additional tax?" or, "What is the rate of purchase tax?" or again, "What is the development charge?", and so on. This often means that a very desirable proposition is completely put out of court on account of the taxation.
There seems to me to be a sort of widespread, old-fashioned witch hunt to seek out anyone who is operating at a profit. I feel that if a man by his inventive genius devises a better way of doing a job, he is entitled to a reasonable part of the profits that result; he should not be penalised by taxation and, pos-
298
sibly, publicly abused. It gives me the same sort of feeling of discouragement as that which I once had some thirty years ago, when the rate setter came along to my lathe and said he thought of cutting the rate because I was doing the job too well. That was a thoroughly bad practice which the trade unions were quite right to fight, and it has long stopped. But why should that principle be resurrected again to-day in a broader form? I believe that any form of discriminating taxation eventually brings into operation the law of diminishing returns, and to discriminate against the investor is to discriminate against national development.
I do not wish to be controversial, as I am not a violent Party man, but I feel that it is a pity that the basis of compensation in some nationalisation schemes has been considered unfair by many people. I think it is unfortunate that there should be any suggestion that the Government have been clever and have done a smart deal by taking over assets below their obvious value. Of course, the Government are the trustees of the public purse, but I feel that they are also the trustees of the public honour and credit. It is a dangerous precedent, I should have thought, for a Government to issue heir own bolds to take over an undertaking which is valued only at the current Stock Exchange price or the equivalent. One can think of instances where prices may vary enormously in the course of a month or two. Some people point to figures relating to profits of companies; they draw attention to the fact that in some cases these have increased and they say: "Then is nothing to worry about." But I feel that a lot of these profits are not real. As Lord Rennell and other noble Lords have said very strongly—and it is a fact which cannot be over-stated—the way in which depreciation has operated in recent years is altogether wrong. I think industry is grateful for the concessions proposed in the Budget which will assist the provision of new plant, but no provision is made for replacing plant which is going to cost say three times as much as it did originally and which should be amortised from the existing profits.
We hear a good deal about controls and about increasing production, but controls add to overheads and costs of distribution. It must be admitted, also, that

299
the armies of Civil Servants arranging distribution have to be carried by the producers. Some people dismiss this as planning, as if planning had never taken place before, which I always feel is rather an exaggeration. We have advanced in planning, as in a good many other things, but it is wrong to suppose that there was no planning in the last century. I often wonder how the question of efficiency can be rightly assessed in these days. If only accountants and others concerned in such matters could devise some means of computing waste due to time and energy lost in queuing, I believe that it would help greatly and would be indicative, in an important respect, as to whether or not business really was being more efficiently run.
It is always possible to play about with figures, but I feel that many of the present controls are unnecessary, and that a far more vigorous effort could be made to remove them. But the Government always seem to me to be working on out-of-date figures which, by the time they are collated, are more of academic interest than of practical value. I do not feel sure that the Government are watching with a broad view the margin of available supplies. There are several signs—as has been stated by previous speakers—of the sellers' market reaching its end, and I believe it is true to say that a 10 per cent. shortage of supply will create a great scarcity, whereas a 2 per cent. surplus may make a glut. I urge strongly that the present situation is far too serious—though one does not want to be over-gloomy about it, for of course there are things on the credit side—to be allowed to be influenced by Party politics. I do urge the Government to make every effort to remove bitterness and to increase good will between all sections of the community, and so allow a return of that confidence which is essential for the maintenance of our standards of living and to make the pound sterling a currency that is wanted by all.
6.10 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am sure that I shall have the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in having to address your Lordships' House at this time. But while it may possibly be thought that everything has been said which can be said on this very important
300
subject, there are one or two points that I think still remain to be dealt with. In the first place, I may say that I received the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—is not very kindly disposed towards the Government. I think that if he were more kindly disposed towards them, he would probably have thought fit to make some graceful acknowledgment of the Government's goodness towards him in producing the Economic Survey upon which he annually bases his remarks in these debates. This production in a convenient form of facts and figures, of hopes and plans and estimates for the future welfare of the nation, this annual stocktaking, this Survey, makes it easier for the critics of the Government to shoot: the ammunition is provided for them.
In my judgment, the Economic Survey for 1947, the first production of this nature, was a broad and statesmanlike innovation in the science of government and world politics. It was designed to present to the nation a dispassionate, factual and objective review of our condition as a family. It indicated the desperate position in which we found ourselves as a nation, and the organised long-term and short-term plans for our recovery. It offered no Party advantage to the Government, nor was any advantage sought. Having regard to the very serious economic position of the country in 1947 and 1948, it was easy for the Opposition to criticise and ascribe all those conditions to the wickedness or ineptitude, or both, of a Socialist Government. I wonder whether the noble Lord has read his speeches of last year and the year before on this subject, and whether he would be generous enough to acknowledge that not all his deductions at that time were accurate and not all his gloomy prophecies have been fulfilled.
I thought that in the course of his speech he sounded quite disappointed that there had been such progress during last year. It would have been so much easier for him if things had remained as bad as they were. With an obvious desire and a determination not to give away too many Party points, he reluctantly paid a compliment to British industry, to the management and workers alike who, under the overall plan of a

301
benevolent Government (that would not be the noble Lord's adjective), in the fourth quarter of 1948 increased the volume of exports, excluding coal and textiles, by some one-third in the case of iron and steel to nearly three times in the case of vehicles, over the volume of 1938. I cannot claim, as the noble Lord can claim, to be an economist. I am just one of the ordinary citizens for whom this Survey was primarily intended, and it gives me, as it must give all those who care to study it, a tolerably good idea of the affairs of the nation and the difficulties which confront us. Unlike the noble Lord, I received a good deal of encouragement front it. It is my view that there is little purpose in a debate of this kind in quoting a mass of figures—the pounds million, the megawatts of electricity, the calories or grammes of protein, vegetable and animal, which we consume every day. These figures we can consider carefully in the privacy of our studies and laboratories. As I see it, the value of the Survey is that it has been made at all and, having been made, that from first to last it bears the impress of truth, of profound thought, of initiative, and of foresight and leadership. There is no attempt to gloss over difficulties. It is not a vote catching device, any more than, contrary to the expectations of some of our opponents, the Budget was. In my judgment it stands out as an example to the whole world of the purity and probity of British politics.
In this connection the final paragraph of the Survey is worth noting. It says:
"This Survey has sought to set out plainly the prospects, good and bad, and the tasks, difficult as they are, which face the British people and their Government in 1949."
I do not apologise for calling attention in this special way to the intrinsic quality of the Survey, because of the efforts of the noble Lord to cast suspicion on it. Phrases have been used suggesting that there are some devious and nefarious reasons for changing the form of the presentation of some of the statistics. In my judgment, a necessary preliminary to any review of this Survey is that it should be accepted as an honest and truthful document designed to place before the nation in a straightforward way an account of the nation's business.
There is little doubt in the mind of anyone that the two most important
302
factors governing our economic position and our future are the generous help of the United States and our foreign relations. These two factors, I think, will govern the whole position in the next few years. The European Recovery Programme is to some extent beyond our control, unless our inordinate expenditure on drink and tobacco, not to mention betting and football pools, is increasingly regarded across the Atlantic as an indication of improvident expenditure. The spending of £1,500,000,001) a year on drink and tobacco is no evidence of poverty. Two-thirds of our expenditure on food is spent on drink and tobacco, nearly twice as much as we spend on clothes, and two-and-a-half times as much as we spend on rent, rates and water. I know that this has little effect on the main problems with which the Survey deals—the balance of trade and so forth—except perhaps to a small extent with regard to tobacco and the fact that it may be that in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages some good foodstuffs are destroyed which could be turned to better use, either as food for livestock or for human beings.
In regard to the expenditure on the Armed Forces, I think one of the greatest disappointments I have had is the lack of understanding between ourselves and the Soviet Republic—I know there are many people who think like me on this subject. I always had the greatest sympathy with that country and her endeavours. Like many others, I thought that the advent of a Socialist Government here would ensure amicable relations and co-operative effort between the two countries. I pay tribute to our Foreign Secretary for the patience and tolerance he has shown in regard to that country, in the face of disappointment which to him must have been extremely keen, and in the face of downright rudeness. I hope, however, that the Kremlin will realise that they have only themselves to blame for the present situation. I hope they will realise that this country has no aggressive policy against Russia. I hope they will realise that no cordon sanitaire is needed; that they need not extend their sphere of influence in Europe for that purpose. Above all I hope they will not regard some of the exuberant speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, as representing the senti-

303
ment of this country in regard to them. That leads me to say that I hope before the year is out there may be some relaxation of expenditure on the Armed Forces.
The two principal factors within our control are coal and textiles, each of which, as has been said I think by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, are disappointing. The need for a further increase in coal output, says the Survey, and the keys to success, are more regular attendance, greater output per man-shift and an increase in the number of face workers. Let us recognise at once that the output per man-shift is steadily rising; the output for March of this year is higher than in 1938, or in any year since. Extended working, on the one hand, and the introduction of mechanisation, on the other, make it impossible to compare accurately one period with another. None the less, the upward trend is gratifying. Absenteeism baffles the management and the trade union leaders. It is disturbing to find that in each of the last four or five months absenteeism has risen. But who am I, and who are your Lordships, to urge the miner to work longer hours in the pits? I do not know how true it is, but I am told that a good deal of absenteeism may be due to the higher average age of miners. There may be something in that. Miners as a class are no lazier than any other class. I went down a mine not long ago, and the memory I shall always carry of that visit is not the awkward progress along the shaft but the dust, the smell of hot human flesh and the obvious physical strain that was put on the men who were working on the coal face.
It may be—I think the noble Lord who preceded me touched on this point—that we shall have to alter our ideas of the value of human labour. We may be driven to accept the principle that a human being who spends so much of his life in the bowels of the earth, taxing his physical strength in conditions which at the best are difficult and at the worst intolerable, will not work longer hours than a clerk in a healthy, clean office. I for one would not blame them for taking that view. We may even (this may sound revolutionary) have to pay a miner as much as a dentist. I suggest that in many of these things our standards are fundamentally wrong, and
304
the sooner we realise that, the more likelihood there will be of increasing the man-power in the mines. The other day I overheard, quite by chance, the efforts of a man—I think he was a Welshman—trying to persuade four coloured men to go into the mines. What success he had I do not know, but it occurred to me, and has probably occurred to the Coal Board, that this problem of over-population in the West Indies might be worth considering in regard to the question of increasing the number of men in the mines.
I had intended to call attention to the great shortage of labour in the textile industry. We are told in the Survey that in the dollar area there is an unsatisfied demand for worsteds. Because of the shortage of labour in that industry, I just want to say, by way of mild criticism of the Government, that I take no satisfaction in the statement that only 300 persons have been directed to industry during the last twelve months. If for any reason there is a setback in our balance of trade—several noble Lords have indicated directions in which there may be a setback; for example, if E.R.P. were interrupted—it may be that we shall not only have to direct labour into textiles and the mines but generally restrict unproductive labour, which we know is being wasted so much in this country at the present time. I feel sure that the Government will not wait until 1952 to take the necessary steps to secure the labour that is needed in these essential industries.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to indicate that if he had his way there would be a curtailment of our social services. I hope I do not do the noble Lord an injustice in coming to that conclusion.
LORD CHERWELL: I did not say anything of the sort.
LORD KERSHAW: I know the noble Lord did not say it in so many words, but the impression I had was that that was one way in which an economy could be effected. I merely want to call attention to the fact that there can be an economic profit, so to speak, from the increased health services that have now been established. I believe the noble Lord even went so far as to mention maternity and child welfare. Are we to scrap the services which have reduced our infant mortality from 140-odd per 1,000 to 40 per 1,000?
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord must have misunderstood me entirely. What I said was that if we want the social services we must pay for them. That is the only point I made. What I object to is that the people who asked for the social services now complain because they have to pay for them.
LORD KERSHAW: I can quite understand that the noble Lord dare not say that he would scrap those services. But let me tell the noble Lord that twenyfive years ago I interested myself in the subject of maternal mortality, which, as your Lordships know, has now been brought down to two per 1,000 births. For generations that problem defeated solution in this country, and thousands of worsen died of childbirth who need not have died. There is no question about that. Does the noble Lord know that in 1924 a Royal Commission recommended an extension of our maternity services and provided the money for it, that the present Leader of the Tory Party (who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days) took that money for the relief of the Exchequer, and that we had to wait fully ten years before we achieved any progress in dealing with that particular problem? With that experience behind me, I am not at all convinced that the noble Lord, and those who see as he does, would not interfere with those services if he had the opportunity.
LORD CHERWELL: I do not think the noble Lord has the right to impute to us statements that we never made. It is all very well to quote what somebody said in 1924. I do not quote what Mr. Gladstone said in 1887. It has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. I have said specifically—and if the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find it—that both Parties agree about the desirability of the social services. The only difference is that his Party pretend they can be had for nothing, whereas our Party say that they have to be paid for.
LORD KERSHAW: If I remember aright, in the course of his speech the noble Lord used language designed to impute to the Government some unscrupulous and dubious reason for altering the form of the statistics shown in the Survey. If the noble Lord is entitled to impute unworthy motives to the Government in the production of the Survey,
306
I think he must not be too thin-skinned about what we say from this side. What I am saying about maternal mortality—and it does not matter whether it was twenty-five years ago or to-day; the spots on the leopard do not change in this respect—is that there are thousands of women in their graves to-day who need not have been, had there been a Labour Government instead of a Tory Government in 1924 or 1925. That is the fact which is outstanding.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord, of course, is entitled to make any remarks of that sort he likes. He is incapable of proving them, but I am capable of proving any of my statements. He claims the right to impute unworthy motives. If he chooses to exercise such a right, he may. I have done nothing of the sort.
LORD KERSHAW: Perhaps in a forthcoming debate on social services, there will be an opportunity of proving to the hilt what I have just said about maternal mortality. I did not catch what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said.
LORD RENNELL: I said that I did not think it had anything to do with a debate on economic affairs.
LORD KERSHAW: It has a great deal to do with it, because the noble Lord has said, and others have suggested, that under our present economic system we cannot afford our social services.
LORD CHERWELL: I wish the noble Lord would attend to what is said in the House before making statements like that. I said nothing of the sort. I did not say that we could not afford the social services. I said that if we wanted the social services we must make up our minds to pay for them. It is no good the noble Lord saying that I said I did not want them.
LORD KERSHAW: I am quite satisfied. I am unrepentant in this respect: I feel that there are members of the noble Lord's Party who would reduce the social services if they had the power to do it, and I am not sure that the noble Lord is not one of them.
What I want to say in regard to that—and I do not think the noble Lord will dispute it—is that there must be an economic result of the community's improved health. We have, in my view,

307
attached far too much importance to the loss of productive capacity caused by unemployment, and too little importance to the loss of productive capacity caused by invalidity. If we can reduce the invalidity, we are helping to increase our production. We believe that, both from the long and the short point of view, we are following the only road which will ensure a standard of life worthy of our people. And I repeat that, while I admit the value of the Survey and comprehend the meaning of the tables and figures which illustrate it, I see in, around, about and above it all that it is a plan to ensure the greatest common factor of happiness, of comfort and of prosperity for our people. That is why I strongly object to criticisms that it is not an honest and straightforward document.
6.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am not going to pursue the noble Lord into speculation in the vital statistics of the past. He has been doing some judicious research into the former speeches of my noble Leader. I only wish that he gave us more opportunity of hoisting him with his own petard. The feature of the debate to-day which pleased me most was that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and the noble Lord, Lord Brand, pointed out so clearly to the noble Lord who is to reply that the Socialist State breaks down on the question of voluntary savings. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will ponder the matter very deeply in his mind, and that it will not be long before I am accustomed to looking at the back of his head from this Bench, instead of at his face.
I am going to raise only two points to-night. One is a sectional one, and the other is wider. The sellers' market has nowhere been more apparent than in cotton textiles, but there is a sign that it is now disappearing, and that competition will be felt from Japan and our other competitors. Before the war we had great difficulty in competing with Japan, except on the finest cloths, and that was in spite of the fact that we had the choice of the finest raw materials in the world. A merchant could accept an order to any specification from any part of the world, and knew that he could get it finished and woven in a most competitive manner; that the spinner who
308
would spin the yarn would have access to the finest selection of cotton in the world and would be able to produce the most competitive cotton of the day. But nowadays the position is very different. Certainly competition will revive in Lancashire, but the industry is carrying on its back a wasteful system of cotton buying run by the Cotton Commission.
The Cotton Commission try to import the cotton which will be required and then to sell it to the spinner. In practice it has been found that the Commission tend to import not what will be required but what has been required, and they are frequently unable to supply the spinner with the exact type of cotton best suited to the yarn he has to produce. Moreover, their prices are subject to violent fluctuations. All this means waste, because the spinner does not get the most economical type of cotton from which to produce his yarn, and our yarn prices are never exactly in line with the rest of the world. To-day we tend to do business when our prices are too cheap, and not when they are too dear; and the exporters can be caught out at any moment by a heavy increase in price. Of course, the system does not stop us from producing cotton cloth, but it means that the goods we do produce are not so good in quality, and that the price is not so favourable as it might be.
So far, these matters have not been very vital; but the time is arriving when they will be vital, and it will take time to alter our arrangements. We have not seen the trading results of this Commission, but I believe that it will be found that they have a very large stock of unsuitable cotton, bought not so much through their own ineptitude as because of the inevitable fact that when Government come in at the door quality flies out of the window. They will be able in due course to get rid of this cotton, but the home consumer, whether as a consumer or a taxpayer, or both, will have to pay for it. Lancashire is very frightened of Japanese competition—and with good cause. I believe we have not a hope of competing with Japan unless the Americans can raise the Japanese level of wages to European standards. We must therefore do our best to see that we keep at all events the higher quality end of the trade. There used once to be a link from the cotton field to the shop. We have broken that link, and we must restore it

309
as soon as we can. The steps to take are, first, to decentralise the buying to the old channels. The next step should be to open the Liverpool spot market and later still we should aim at opening the Liverpool futures market. But even if we do these things, I do not believe we shall be able to compete when competition in cotton goods is once more the vogue.
The other point I want to make covers rather a wide field; it concerns our trade with Canada. It seems to me tragic that that great Dominion, from which we could derive such an enormous proportion of the vital raw materials we need, should be cut off from us by reason of the fact that we cannot pay for their goods in dollars. I believe that very grave choices lie before the Canadian people, and that before Marshall Aid comes to an end they will have to decide their course. This would appear to be their dilemma: Do they wish to remain a country of great producers of raw material, and if so are they prepared to hazard being able to sell those raw materials in the United States market, or are they prepared to rely on the much safer and more certain market that we can afford in this country? If their choice lies in continuing with Britain, I think they will clearly have to take certain steps. They will have to make sacrifices—not in the same form as Marshall Aid, because we do not want to ask for any more charity; but the Canadian Government must be prepared to enter into some form of reciprocal arrangement with our own. It will be a form of sacrifice, if you like, by urban Canada on behalf of rural Canada.
I believe, and many good judges believe with me, that the prospects of persuading the 12,000,000 people in Canada to buy an enormously increased selection of British goods are quite chimerical; and we have to increase our exports there by a minimum of £100,000,000 a year—and it may well be more. That can be achieved only by inter-governmental arrangements, and this is possibly the only area of the world where such an arrangement would be justifiable. In consideration of our giving an assured market for Canadian goods, the Government of Canada would have to agree to accept sterling, which would be laid out in purchases in this country, either by themselves or by their nationals. There are ways of doing this. Either course that I
310
can envisage would, in the initial years at any rate, involve the taxpayers of Canada in substantial expense. But that is the price of an assured and certain market, and I believe that it would be a cheap price for Canada to pay for that market and for an assurance of internal prosperity.
6.46 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on a subject which I do not think has been mentioned before in this debate. There seems to me no doubt: that a great part of our financial troubles is due to the enormous expense of the social services. To me it seems almost certain that a struggle will shortly arise between youth and age on this subject. The benefits of the social services are enjoyed almost entirely by the old; the young get very little. They get education, of course, but education is poorly esteemed by our young people—and I think rightly so, because although education is supposed to fit them for competing for better paid jobs than they already possess, the number of better paid jobs will not increase and there will merely be more competition for the same jobs. At any rate, it seems to me extremely probable that youth will not consent to sweat to produce for the constantly increasing comfort of the old and to the detriment of the prospects of their own children. I read in The Times the other day an article on this subject which appeared to me to be extremely appropriate. It said that in a few years' time old age pensioners and those about to qualify for old age pensions would together constitute 42 per cent. of the electorate, and their principal object would be to enforce greater payments to themselves. I should like to ask the Government whether they have considered this subject and what they propose to do about it.
6.48 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, this has been an important debate, and I hope that before we proceed much further the Front Bench opposite will recover its previous form and that I shall not be left alone—except for the support of my own colleagues—in possession of the battlefield. I am slightly inhibited by the absence of the noble Lord to whom I had one or two things to say, but in his absence (for which I have no doubt there

311
are good reasons) I return to the more immediately practical and less controversial aspect of the subject.
There is no doubt that there has been a very great improvement in the fortunes of this country in the last year. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, says it is unfair to make the comparison with the previous year; but it would surely be strange if we did not compare it. However, if the comparison with 1947 is not appreciated, let us go back to 1946. We find that there has been a very great improvement since 1946. I well remember the debate in May of that year, the first of this long series, when Lord Cherwell took his usual gloomy line—and he was rebuked effectively to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. So it has gone on for three years, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, saying that everything is going to the devil—he, you might say, constituting himself the "devil's advocate" for that purpose—the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, balancing things, while we on this side have taken a reasonably optimistic view. Looking back over the last three years, I think that everyone would agree that, by and large, the optimists have been more right than the pessimists.
I should like to endorse what has been said by noble Lords on these Benches who have paid tribute to the workers of this country, and by other noble Lords who have done the same. Let us give credit to the workers, to the managers, to the "risk-takers" (if they are to be regarded to-day as a separate category) and to all those who have played their part. But credit should not be withheld from the Government whose policies appear to have succeeded, and we on this side are not going to withhold credit from the Opposition who have goaded us, spurred us and "chivvied" us and may be considered in those ways to have played a most useful part.
Unless your Lordships press me, I do not intend to give you the kind of economic survey which the House of Lords might on certain occasions expect when we are discussing economic affairs. There has been a great outpouring of figures, and I do not think anybody can complain that during the last few weeks Ministers have not communicated sufficient information to the general
312
public. Noble Lords who have waited till this late hour have no doubt studied all that has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and other speakers. It is perhaps just worth observing that in February of this year the figure for production was 30 per cent. over the figure for 1946. If February is to be regarded as an exceptionally good month, then let us take January, where we find that the figure was 23 per cent. over that for 1946. Those figures are indicative and illustrative of the great improvement in production. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, attempted to whittle down the figures very much, though I thought at one point he was going to. The House is already aware that the exports in the first quarter of this year were 156 per cent. above those of pre-war. That is really a tremendous achievement.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not right.
LORD PAKENHAM: I stand corrected by the famous mathematician sitting behind me. As soon as he spoke, I realised that I was wrong. I must apologise to your Lordships. The figure is 56 per cent. increase over pre-war. Who of us thought—certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell—who of us was really certain three years ago that we were going to achieve a figure of that kind? Do not let us underestimate it for a moment. Let us express satisfaction with it and congratulate those concerned. Nevertheless, satisfaction must not at any price lead us into complacency. I hope that, if I do emphasise the good that has happened, no one will accuse me of putting up my feet and saying: "All is now over bar the shouting." Of course it is not. There are still tremendous problems facing this country, and none of us In the Government would attempt to conceal them from the country. If we did, we would rightly be hurled from power. There are difficulties of selling our goods, and those difficulties may well increase, although I do not agree that the sellers' market has decreased already. I do not know what significance to attatch to that phrase. Our exports are still going up and I am not going to agree that the sellers' market has disappeared. Nevertheless, let us face the fact that it might disappear, and let us look at the whole problem with our eyes open.

313
We are all well aware that the overall trade balance that had been achieved by the end of last year contained within itself a very serious deficit with the dollar area. Again and again we must hark back to that, and I hope we can do so with general approval. That is the crucial problem confronting our country. As I have indicated, the dollar deficit is still very heavy. The United Kingdom deficit with the dollar area in 1948 amounted to £311,000,000, even though we had cut down our imports in a most drastic fashion. It had fallen from £655,000,000 in 1947, but still there it was, the very high figure of £311,000,000. We are absolutely determined and pledged, both as a Government and as a country, somehow or other to become self-supporting by the time Marshall Aid comes to an end. I hope I shall not get into trouble if I say that, while we as a country would have suffered calamitously if we had not had Marshall Aid and would still suffer calamitously if it were withdrawn, we must not exaggerate the proportion of the national income represented by that Marshall Aid, It represents about 3 per cent. of our total national income, but it is a marginal figure. It is absolutely vital; we could not have done without it, and we should be hard put to it indeed if we had not it now. It is not that noble Lords here will be misled, but do not let us create an impression abroad that almost one-half or one-quarter, or some colossal figure of that kind, of our national income is being lent us or given us by way of charity from abroad. It is about 3 per cent. of our total national income. It is vital that everyone should understand that.
From reading the Survey, the House is aware of the various approaches that are being made with a view to ending the dollar deficit before Marshall Aid ceases. To-day I want to stress particularly the drive into the markets of North America, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, spoke so interestingly but, if I may say so, all too briefly. I hope we shall hear from him more fully on another occasion. But before coming to that matter, I would offer the opinion that we can never hope to balance our trade with Canada and the United States. What we must do is increase our exports to that area greatly, remembering that in 1948 our exports amounted to £136,000,000, but our imports from the
314
United States and Canada came to over £400,000,000. We must do everything we can to increase our exports greatly. We must try to do everything we can in addition to increase the exports from the sterling area. I will not detain the House with many facts about what is being done to develop the dollar-earning power of the Colonies as we have recently had a Colonial debate, but I certainly must not pass ever that point. I should stress that Colonial production is seen by all of us to be able to make a great contribution to the dollar balance, and it is with that very much in mind that the Government's great Colonial development projects have been undertaken. Last year the Colonies earned considerably more in dollars than they spent, the chief dollar-earners being Malaya with tin and rubber and West Africa with cocoa and non-ferrous metals.
LORD BRAND: May I ask one question on that point? Does the noble Lord include oil companies' production in his Colonial figures, or not?
LORD PAKENHAM: I should like to look into that matter before giving the noble Lord an answer. The chief dollar earnings which I have been given are tin and rubber, from Malaya, and cocoa and non-ferrous metals, from West Africa. The importance of this Colonial dollar surplus is emphasised in the United Kingdom long-range programme, which shows that, even if all goes well, the United Kingdom will still have a deficit of over £70,000,000 with the Western Hemisphere in 1952–1953.
LORD HAWKE: Does that deficit allow only for the present meagre trade between Canada and ourselves?
LORD PAKENHAM: No. It is reckoned that the trade will be increased. But that is part of the plan, that when we reach that stage there will still be this deficit on the part of the United Kingdom with the area in question, which will be compensated by the Colonial surplus. I should, of course, mention that the Colonies are also increasingly helping the United Kingdom, and other parts of the sterling area, to save dollars by supplying more food and raw materials to replace imports from the Western Hemisphere. Last year over 10 per cent. of

315
the United Kingdom imports came from the Colonies, compared with 5 per cent. before the war.
I will detain the House for more than a few minutes, because it is a very important subject, with some discussion of the Government's North American export drive. I take it that the House are already aware of, and have studied closely, the steps that have been announced by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. It will be remembered that in the Budget debate he announced eight different ways in which the Government were assisting the attack on those markets. But I would like to stress, and on behalf of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to make it plain, that if this great enterprise is to succeed it can only be on the basis of the most intimate co-operation between industry, the City and all the Government Departments concerned. It cannot be done by the Government. The Government can create the conditions by which it can be accomplished. Industry and finance have come forward, as noble Lords who read the papers are already aware, and both the industrialists and the financiers are showing themselves anxious to play a part in this great merchant adventure—an expression at which a certain amount of mild fun is poked.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, were here. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a merchant adventurer can be animated equally by a desire to serve his country and by a desire to make a profit for himself. I break off a little, late though it is, to say that many of the champions of private enterprise always seem to take a rather unfairly low view of the human nature of these gentlemen that the noble Lord, Lord Brand, has called "the geese." I think these gentlemen are often very capable, and when I look round I see very good examples, including, indeed, Lord Brand himself, who has served alternately in public service and in private business, if I am not mistaken, for a number of years. I look around and I see many gentlemen who have proved conclusively that they do not require the profit motive to render a great service to the country, or even to produce most important commercial results.
LORD BRAND: I would like to point out to the noble Lord that of course one must consider loss. A merchant adventurer who decides with patriotism and makes a loss would do it once, or perhaps twice, until his capital was exhausted. But he cannot continue on patriotism alone. It is not only because he wants to make a profit; he has to make a profit to do it again, because he may make a loss some time. Noble Lords on those Benches have perhaps never had the experience of being in business where you have to consider with every transaction you undertake what is the chance of loss. If you do not consider that, you are lost; you may certainly go on till your capital is exhausted, but then you stop. You must consider that. The nexus is there the whole time. If you go into business, you may make a profit or you may make a loss. A man does not go into business to make a profit, ignoring the possibility of loss, because the question of loss is always there.
LORD HAWKE: As an ex-merchant adventurer, may I point out that when the profit comes along in normal times it varies from 1 to 5 per cent., but when the loss comes along, very often it is 20 or 25 per cent.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord is not quite on the point that I, no doubt imperfectly, was trying to expound to the House. I was referring to what I thought the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was suggesting. He asked how these people are to be encouraged to show this enterprise unless they are animated by the spirit of making a profit, which generally inspired the merchant adventurers of early days. The noble Lord has raised the question not of the profit motive, but the profit test, which is another matter. I was addressing myself to what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, to say.
LORD BRAND: They must hope to make a profit because they may make a loss. They cannot say, "We will ignore both profit and loss, and we will do it for fun," because fun is not any good in business. You have got to do it for something.
LORD PAKENHAM: At any rate, they seem to be doing it now. They seem to be anxious and willing to play their part, and I seem to be the only noble Lord,

317
apart from my colleagues, who has a sufficiently high appreciation of the moral worth of these gentlemen. However, that is how it seems to me. Now, my Lords, whatever view we take of that, we are all agreed in desiring to push forward this great enterprise, and I will say just a word or two, that perhaps has not been said quite so clearly elsewhere, about the prospect confronting our business men in the markets of Canada and the U.S.A.
The major difficulties in the Canadian market are, first of all, the United States domination of the market while the United Kingdom was out of it during the war; and, secondly, price. On the first of those points, we are doing all we can, as the President has explained elsewhere, to familiarise the Canadians once more with the excellence in quality of British products. On the question of price, one cannot stress too strongly the importance of our remaining fully competitive in this most competitive market. Certainly I would be the last person to say that our costs are low enough, or that our productivity is high enough. We must go all out to keep up the productivity and keep down the cost. If I may allude to my own industry, that of civil aviation, we are there in prospect a dollar-earning industry. We should be able to earn a good many dollars for the country in the years ahead. There, our costs are falling rapidly, though we must get them down faster still. A further adverse factor is delivery dates, though there has been a good deal of improvement in this field throughout 1948. But in the past, I am afraid we have sometimes been behind with our deliveries.
In the United States there are two aspects of the general problem. First, there is the urgent need to widen, both in type and quality, the range of goods which we sell in that market, and to find new selling lines. In some of our staple lines we are already faced with more intensive competition from United States manufacturers, and from producers in other European countries. In many cases, we require new designs, new production techniques, and increased Government facilities and insurance cover for the manufacturers. The second point that I would stress with regard to the United States concerns distribution. Unfortunately, it is a fact that in some parts
318
of the United States British merchandise is still relatively unknown. In many instances there are good reasons for this. When supplies are a limiting factor, and when all we can produce can be readily absorbed by established customers on the Eastern seaboard, there has clearly been little incentive to push our distribution arrangements any further. But now that goods of types suitable for the United States market are becoming increasingly available, we must strive to ensure that they and their way into every single corner of the American market.
It is important to re disc that the share of imports in the total supplies sold in the United States market is very small indeed. A recent estimate of the United States Department of Commerce showed that for 1947 it would amount to about 14 per cent. of the market for pottery, 13 per cent. for "notions, novelties, and specialities" (including sporting goods, bicycles, etc.), about 4 per cent. for table glassware and musical instruments, 3 per cent. for jewellery and 2 per cent. for toys and games. Our percentage is negligible for such categories as office equipment, hardware, electrical appliances, scientific instruments, furniture, and so on. In other words, British products at present account for only a very small proportion of the total supplies in the United States market.
Before the war we supplied about 2 per cent. of the United States' requirements in worsted cloth, 7 per cent. in pottery products and less than 1 per cent. of table glassware. We must, somehow or other, make very big improvements both on the pre-war figures and on the figures which we have so far achieved. The figures I have quoted certainly show the enormous size of the American market. They show that there are in it colossal opportunities for us, in spite of competition which we may regard as likely to grow and grow continually. The Government fully realise the many difficulties which will be facing British trade and industry in its attack on the hard core of the American market. Whatever view we may take of the sellers' market, whatever the particular date at which we may regard it as likely to disappear, undoubtedly the day of the sellers' market is nearly gone. Buyers are becoming more and more price conscious and more and more particular

319
in regard to the quality of their purchases. On the other hand, many of the bottle-necks in our own industry have been eliminated, and production has been rising steadily during the last two years. The figures show that our manufacturers are delivering the goods as well as taking orders for them. Therefore, I repeat, the North American market represents a challenge which we must meet and an opportunity of which I believe we can and will take the fullest advantage.
The debate has ranged very widely, and though we now have the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with us we have lost the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, which makes it impossible for me to play them off against each other quite in the way I had anticipated. I am bound to say—though it is not pleasant to do so—that we, on these Benches, do feel that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with all his brilliant gifts, displayed as usual to full advantage, made a very unfair speech. I am bound to say that. I should be concealing from the noble Lord what is in our minds and, I think, is in the minds of many here, all of whom may not necessarily be on these Benches. I realise that Lord Cherwell conceives it to be his duty on this occasion to take the gloomiest possible view of everything. It is not for me to interpret his duty for him; it would be impertinent for me to attempt to do anything of the kind. But we, on these Benches, feel that a speech of the kind which he has delivered casts a reflection not only on the Government—and Governments must look after themselves—but on the workers of this country.
I must add that Lord Cherwell was rather severe with Lord Kershaw and, so far as we could judge, seemed to be casting imputations on the way in which the Survey had been organised. But I am not quite sure about that. It may be that his remarks were playful. It is possible that he was not seriously suggesting that figures had been "cooked" and that there had been a switch round to assist the purposes of the Government. I am quite ready to take it that way, to accept what he said as humour which he felt to be appropriate and in place. But if it were meant seriously it would be a very shocking charge to make against the Government, to suggest that they had deliberately
320
altered the basis of comparison so that people could not find out how many civil servants there were. But as I have intimated, I take it that the noble Lord was being whimsical and was not serious. I ask him to realise, however, that some of us on these Benches, not unnaturally took him to be speaking seriously.
I would like to endorse Lord Cherwell's final remark in the interchange which was provoked by my intervention. I agree that in the latest edition of the Digest the old table is given and the new table is given. The noble Lord's final observation on that was correct. I accept that absolutely. I perhaps understood him wrongly, but I was asking for information. I understood him to be implying in some way that the old figures were being withheld. Since I misunderstood him I express my regret. I gather that that was not really his intention. Export figures were given and they are still given, though I do not know how much longer they will be. The noble Lord made great play with them, and indeed it is doubtful if these figures can be taken as completely valid until they are more thoroughly corroborated. There seem to be good reasons—reasons which have been brought forward on previous occasions by the noble Lord—for not using them. That would seem to be an argument for not including them in future Surveys. But we must wait and see whether the figures are regarded as firm enough for future use.
May I now come to the general issues of the debate? If the House wishes me to detain it at length I will gladly be detained, but I am not pressing for that in any way at all. It is true, I think, that a debate of this kind brings out a very wide measure of agreement. It also brings out certain points of disagreement. Certain noble Lords opposite, including Lord Cherwell, become very hot if we suggest that they want to reduce the social services. That is regarded as a somewhat villainous charge if it is made from this side of the House. I am not sure if that charge is fair or unfair, though I am clear that the noble Lord himself did not to-day suggest any reduction of the social services. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, who spoke with his customary weight, detachment and objectivity, clearly regrets the introduction at this date of health services, so it is fair to say that if he had had his way the

321
social services would not have reached their present level. But he does not speak from the Benches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, wished to cut the food subsidies down to £370,000,000—that is, roughly £100,000,000 below the present figure. So I think it is fair to say that he wants to bring down the figures. Lord Cherwell informed us, if I heard him correctly, that it is not a matter on which he cares to express a strong opinion. In his view, it is something on which the people must choose, and not an issue on which he is either desirous of giving guidance now or would care to do other than to make the general suggestion that the people must have what they want. I hope that I am interpreting the noble Lord correctly.
In that state of the argument, noble Lords must forgive us if we are not always quite sure whether they do regard the social services at the present time as representing a desirable level or whether they feel that they have been pushed forward too fast. It may be that noble Lords, while they would not wish to cut them down to-day, may feel that they should not have been expanded so quickly as they have been. I am ready to accept from what the noble Lord said to-day that the modern doctrine is that there the social services are, and there they will stay; and that they must not be cut since the people desire to have them. I am bound to say, however, that on this and on certain other matters in the last few years in these debates I have sometimes entertained opinions about the policy of the noble Lords opposite which might have been unfair. At one time it was in my mind, and perhaps it appeared in my language, that they had what I can only call a very had policy. In the words of Mr. Winston Churchill, it was the policy of "Set the people free," though, heaven knows, we are all in favour of freedom. Later, I attributed to noble Lords an absence of policy. But now I am inclined to think that they have the same policy as ourselves—at any rate in very important respects. I hope it is so. I am not trying to widen the area of disagreement or put words in the mouths of noble Lords which are not there.
In these concluding remarks, I can indicate only our own policy, and I hope that it will carry noble Lords with us to
322
a very large extent. The main distinguishing character of the Government's policy, compared with any pre-war peacetime Government that have had a chance of carrying out their programme, is the adoption of the principle of planning. In that connection, I would like to raise, first, the object and, secondly, the mechanism of planning, and then to mention briefly what I would call selective nationalisation, national foresight and social justice. The object of the Government in planning has been the fullest and best use of the national resources in the interests of the whole community. No doubt, in a sense, every past Government worthy of the name have always believed that their actions, or inaction, were those best calculated to secure this very result; no Government ever believed they were conducting a policy to distribute the national resources in any other way than the best. But this Government have done something that no other Government have done in peace-time; they have specifically accepted the responsibility for seeing that this result is secured. When publishing our targets, we have never concealed from the public the uncertainty attached to all such human predictions, especially in the case of a country such as ours, so dependent on trade with other countries. But we have accepted this responsibility and while I cannot tell what noble Lords would have done in our place, it is a new step in our history to have done that in peace time.
I should describe the mechanism as one of democratic guidance. We have often discussed its various aspects—the system of controls and various other factors. I will not detain the House with an elaborate account of them to-night, but there is a difference in principle between the approach we have adopted and any approach that we have seen hitherto in this country in peace time. The basic problem is this: Do we leave it to a large number of people, each pursuing quite lawfully his own individual interests, to make countless individual decisions, which we hope will produce the best possible result in the interests of the country as a whole, or do we insist that the State play an active part in guiding individuals towards certain defined ends? We have chosen the later course, and try to do it in a way which I may fairly describe as democratic. By that, I mean

323
that it will be carried out in consultation with both sides of industry, and will involve as little as possible of direction or industrial conscription, which is repugnant to our feelings and instincts. According to the old economics, there was a force operating called "the invisible hand"—it was Adam Smith who coined the expression. The only trouble about the invisible hand was that, in practice, in the years before the war it had become a visible handicap, in the form of a very large number of unemployed. We decline to carry that handicap, and have set about this policy of deliberate planning by democratic guidance.
That is not the whole story, because any kind of plan could have that general object, and could pursue that general method. There are three features of our plan which will be noted by future historians. First there is the nationalisation of selected industries. On this point I would submit only my own opinion, which I am not asking noble Lords to accept. I am of the firm opinion that in every case the arguments in favour of nationalisation are stronger now than they were at the time when the nationalisation Acts were passed. The second factor I have called national foresight. Some call it austerity and some the policy of abstention. This policy to his eternal credit is associated with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I mean not only the re-distribution of national income between different sections, I mean the choice when in doubt between the future and the present, and the insistence that because of our peculiar position in the world we must on no account run risks with the vital elements in our economy.
I would instance the restriction on imports, concentration on the export market, sometimes admittedly at the expense of the home consumer, and planned expansion of investment. I am glad that we have the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with us again, because on this point there was a considerable difference of emphasis between him and the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. If I am not exaggerating, I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, took the view that we are promising too much investment and the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, thought we were promising too little.
LORD RENNELL: I was not in favour of more investment. I was doubtful whether there was enough to cover the existing commitments.
LORD PAKENHAM: At any rate the noble Lord seemed anxious that the investment mentioned in this Survey should be achieved. He seemed to be certain that we required that amount, and the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, was doubtful about it. Be that as it may, we are trying to maintain a higher level of investment than in the pre-war years. Comparisons are not easy, but it seems true to say that in 1948 the percentage of the national income put into gross investment was some 22 per cent., as against 15 per cent. just before the war. We are trying to secure a higher and, above all, a more stable level than we have seen in the past. That means taking in the belts of the present in the interests of the future. I say this without any Party implications. We have, as a Government, stood for the policy, when in doubt, of taking care of the future. Our investment policy is one example of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, asked me about investments in the Colonies. As he is aware, the figures for investment in the Colonies are not contained in the figures he was discussing. It appears that in 1948 the gross capital investment in the Colonies was in the neighbourhood of £190,000,000. No doubt the noble Lord will ask me to split this up. I should like to pursue the whole subject rather more carefully later, and I will gladly go into it with him.
Then again, we have the stern anti-inflationary Budgets, the Budgets that people have called brutal and unpolitical—and I think everyone has called them courageous. I echo the last adjective. We have stood for this policy of what I would call self-denial in the interests of the people, not only to-day but in the years to come. It is a definite policy. It conflicts with the policies of most other Governments that we have seen in this country, and I do not suggest whether noble Lords opposite would or would not have adopted it. I say only that it has not been adopted in the past, but it is the policy of the Government at the present time. I will just add, while I am on the subject of these very large expenditures, the great sums which we all agree must

325
be expended on defence, and which will undoubtedly have to be expended on defence for a long time to come. However, I do not agree with one noble Lord who spoke of this expenditure as being permanent. I do not say that this expenditure will be permanent, but I should judge that it will continue for a long time to come.
Finally, there is social justice, the great schemes of social betterment, in bringing forward which men of all Parties have played a great part, although we take a special pride in them, and leave it to noble Lords opposite, if they choose, to claim that they are still keener on these schemes than we are. It would be wrong—the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, brought this out—to talk of these schemes as merely redistributive. In any case they represent a great constructive effort by those concerned—the administrators, doctors, nurses, teachers and all the others—and, of course, they represent a means of increasing in the long run the productive power of the country by making us healthier, happier and more secure. But there is an important redistributive element. On the one hand there is this re-distribution among the population, whatever their class, when they are well, of working age and in employment, and, on the other hand, the same people when they are old, sick, or unemployed. In that sense, of course, all the classes bear the burden equally, whether the money is raised by contributions or by taxation. There is also in this legislation—I do not want to conceal this from noble Lords at all; we must leave them to say whether they would have done the same—a re-distributive element of another kind, a re-distribution between the rich and the poor. We achieve that through the way in which the taxation is levied more heavily on the richer members of the community.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That always has been so.
LORD PAKENHAM: I would not agree with the noble Marquess that all taxation has always fallen more heavily on the rich than on the poor. I should say that it has varied at different times. But certainly under the schemes of social service, where contribution has been supplemented by the grant from the State, and when at the same time we have
326
adopted re-distributive principles of taxation, then one may speak of it as a redistribution between classes. I repudiate with some heat the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that we have gone about telling people that they could have this for nothing. That remark astonished us a little on these Benches. It is the sort of remark which we feel the noble Lord throws off in order to irritate. We cannot think of any other reason why he throws it off, because it really bears no resemblance to the facts. We beg the noble Lord, if he feels able, to try and eliminate that sort of observation from subsequent deliverances. The noble Lord accused us also in this connection of stirring up hatred and envy. I do not know why he should say that. I do not suppose—I do not want to become involved in the names of individuals—that any Prime Minister has ever been more moderate in speech, quieter, milder and less prone to attack his opponents than the present Prime Minister. I am something of a student of history, and I cannot recall anybody who was at greater pains to be careful of what he said about his opponents.
Nevertheless, there is re-distribution in these two senses, and it has been part of our policy that it should have taken place. We are told that it has now got to stop; and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken very plainly on this subject. I recall the words in his speech, familiar to the House:
"… there is not much further immediate possibility of the redistribution of national income by way of taxation in this country.… We must therefore moderate the speed of our advance in the extended application of the existing social services to our progressive ability to pay for them by an increase in our national income."
But that does not mean (I would like to emphasise this) that we have travelled too far or too fast, or that the Chancellor has reason to think so. There seemed to be some suggestion in one of the speeches that the Chancellor himself had implied that we had pushed on too fast and had spent too much money. There is no view of his on those lines that is known to me, and I am certain it is not his personal opinion. There we are. At the present time we have these services, and they have to be paid for. We are receiving a measure of assistance from Marshall Aid. We have got to become self-supporting by the time Marshall Aid

327
ends. We have, therefore, to increase our productivity per man, whether we be workers, management or anyone else.
As I draw to an end, I would make this point about the burden of taxation. It is very heavy. The Treasury, as I know from first-hand experience, are taking a very tough line that will commend itself to noble Lords. When these vast sums are spent, I agree with any noble Lord opposite who says that we have to be all the more careful about the way in which every penny is used. But I cannot agree with the suggestion that has been made in the debate, that as a result of this great burden of taxation savings have been inadequate. The investment, actual and planned, as I have submitted to the House, is greater to-day than in pre-war years, and the savings required for that investment are coming forward. In other words, the savings for investment, whether made by the Government, by local authorities, by private corporations or by private individuals, are coming forward, and, so far as I can judge, will continue to come forward. But that in itself is no automatic process. I agree that we must encourage the Savings Movement and redouble our efforts to persuade others to save and to save ourselves. If any words of mine can lead to still greater activity in that respect, let them be said, and said again and again.
I think with what I have said—and I have tried to be perfectly candid with the House, as noble Lords opposite have been candid with us—there is a very wide measure of agreement. I suppose when we get to nationalisation the disagreement is most obvious. I realise that noble Lords are not in all cases happy about the equalitarian form that taxation has taken. I realise also that, both in this House and outside, in business and elsewhere, they have not allowed their political views to colour their national activities. I hope that all of us on these Benches are equally aware of that fact. There is this great humming enterprise abroad throughout the land. In the last few months I myself have visited, for one purpose or another, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham, Durham and Sunderland, and I defy anybody to say that this country is slacking, or is depressed or downhearted about the future. I believe that since the war we have been faced with
328
greater difficulties than have ever confronted us in peace time, and that we, as a nation, have faced up to them, as we should have done whatever the Government. But I do beg noble Lords to believe that the Government have sought to provide the conditions and the inspiration to produce and facilitate the maximum effort from the people of this country. We believe that we have succeeded, in so far as success can be attributed to human efforts of that kind. We cannot expect noble Lords opposite to share that view in its entirety. But let us at any rate agree that the people are doing well, and that we and they and all of us have to do still better. Let us also agree that this debate has been useful, and let me thank the noble Lord who has been so good as to initiate it.
7.42 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, until to-day I had never realised what a lot of prima donnas sit on the opposite Benches. I suppose I ought to have been guided by appearances. But I did not realise how upset they would be because I sometimes asked for accurate and exact statements instead of making exaggerated complimentary remarks. It is a very different thing to cry "stinking fish" and to call attention to the difference between a salmon and a trout. I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who perhaps best fits the description of a prima donna in appearance, acted least like one and was far the most reasonable in his approach. I should like also to take this opportunity of telling the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that whatever his impressions are, he has to accept our statements. What Lord Kershaw thinks is like what the soldier thinks and even what he says: it is not evidence. The evidence he must accept is what we say is our intention, not what he thinks we wish to do.
I will not go into the details of all the various errors and misapprehensions that were obvious in some of the speeches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, asked me whether I had re-read my old speeches, and whether I realised that my gloomy prophecies were not fulfilled. On the contrary, if he remembers the Autumn of 1947, he will see that what I forecast the year before was exactly fulfilled. I do not want at this late hour to explain to him the old fallacy of which he was guilty in comparing output per man-shift

329
instead of output per man-year. As I have said before, we do not judge Lord Kershaw by the length of his interventions; we multiply the length of the interventions with the number of them before we try to assess the value or at any rate the amount he contributes to the debates in this House. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord, Pakenham, showed a very moderate and reasonable approach to the matters we have been discussing, and that perhaps explains why some noble Lords opposite are more accustomed to looking at the back of his head than at his profile. I am glad to learn that the Government in future intend to give us the same distribution table of man-power that we have had in the past.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope I did not give the noble Lord an assurance on that point. I was not intending to give him any assurance, and if words emerged from my mouth to that effect they slipped unawares. I am afraid I am not in a position to do so. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my right honourable friend since the point was raised, and I certainly could give no fresh assurance to-day, except to say that I will convey it to those directly concerned.
LORD CHERWELL: I hope the noble Lord will be successful, because it is quite impossible to form any opinion as to the progress of events if all the categories are suddenly changed half-way through the process. I will not go into all the matters he raised about planning, and so on. Obviously, when you present a Budget you are planning to a certain extent. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that it is more a matter of emphasis; that he goes in for more guidance, and more sharing if it comes to that, rather like the Buchmanites, than we do. That may be. All we say is that there is a difference between good and bad planning, and in many respects we think that some of the plans which have been put forward and put into effect have been bad plans.
The noble Lord complained that I suggested that his Party had given the impression to the manual workers that they could get all the benefits of the social services for nothing. If that is not so, why should there have been so much outcry and why did the manual workers get so excited when they found that they were not getting any reliefs in
330
the Budget? He may not have intended to give the impression, and I certainly would not accuse the present Prime Minister of being one of the wild propagandists who have given this sort of impression, but nobody can deny that some of them did. We have heard that rhetoric is the art of carrying conviction without recourse to logic. I do not suggest that to-night the noble Lord who answered availed himself of his great rhetorical powers, although I hate known occasions where he has perhaps displayed them. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full and courteous reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOOD LANE SITE) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day by the Standing Orders Committee), and read 1a.
  HOUSING IN SCOTLAND
  HOUSING IN SCOTLAND
  CARRYING OUT OF THE DEATH SENTENCE
  CARRYING OUT OF THE DEATH SENTENCE