Sitting of 10 May 1949

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

    Lodging and Travelling Allowances
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour in what industries he is paying subsistence and travelling allowances to workers living away from home; why he is not doing so in the case of the building and civil engineering industry; and whether he will reconsider this position in relation to municipal housing contracts in areas where there is a severe shortage of labour and where the cost of these allowances is at present borne by the local authority.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Grants and allowances are payable by the Ministry of Labour to workers who transfer to industries such as coalmining and cotton, or to very important branches of other industries, such as the manufacture of heavy electrical plant, where there is a special demand for labour. In the building industry, movement from job to job is normal practice and industrial agreements make provision for lodging allowances, where appropriate, to be payable by the employer. There is, therefore, no ground for special provision to be made by the Ministry.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not an anomalous position that private industry is assisted and charges for subsistence allowance are met by taxpayers, whereas in the case of an increase in municipal housing contracts, where large blocks of workers are transferred from, say, South Wales to Staffordshire, costs have to be met by the municipal tenants or the ratepayers?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That anomaly would not be cured by providing another
    1634
    one, which would be the anomaly between private building and public authority building. This arrangement has been made within the industry, and the Ministry cannot interfere.

    Disputes (Settlement Methods)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will appoint a committee of inquiry into the machinery for dealing with disputes and grievances, in view of repeated unofficial strikes that have occurred; and if he will arrange for the committee to have powers to investigate methods of conciliation to deal with recurrent troubles or disputes on minor points.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am satisfied that the present methods for the settlement of disputes, including conciliation, are most effective, and in the circumstances no useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a committee of inquiry as suggested by my hon. Friend.

    Ministry's Offices (Teleprinters)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Labour how many teleprinters are installed in Ministry of Labour regional offices; what was the capital cost of providing them; what is the annual cost of maintaining them; and what is the approximate number of messages sent by the teleprinters per week.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There are 77 teleprinter machines in use in Ministry of Labour offices, of which 16 are installed in regional offices. The weekly average number of messages sent by all teleprinter machines is about 2,000. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the machines are provided and maintained by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
    Colonel Ropner: Is it not true that the number of messages sent between the regional offices does not justify the high expense of installing these machines?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The vast majority of the messages are sent out from London, from the headquarters, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate the

    1635
    necessity of having quick means of communication so that we can supply the greatest possible information in answer to Questions in this House.

    Calico Printing Industry
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that shortage of workers in certain sections of the calico printing industry is causing serious delay to export for important markets; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend has any particular instance in mind, I should be grateful if he would let me have particulars.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend have another look at this matter, because my information is that large quantities of printing cloth lie for a very considerable time after they have been manufactured and that that is very largely due to lack of labour in the printing works?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I only want to say that we have no vacancies notified to the Ministry of Labour for this kind of work.

    Disabled Persons, West Cumberland
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the erecting of a factory for disabled persons in the district of Workington and Maryport, West Cumberland.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Disabled Persons Employment Corporation has for some time been endeavouring to find premises or a site suitable for a factory to cover the needs of Workington, Maryport and Whitehaven, but has not so far been successful.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour how many female German workers have been placed in employment in the hosiery industry; and how many more are likely to be available monthly.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One hundred and seventy-seven German women have been placed in the hosiery industry. The number available in the future depends on
    1636
    the numbers who will prove willing to volunteer for transfer to Great Britain, and it is not as yet possible to estimate this.
    Mr. Shephard: Will the Minister appreciate that this industry is 30,000 short of its pre-war female labour force and do his best to get more of these workers?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. I would say, however, that the greatest help we could have in the matter would be from letters to Germany indicating the satisfaction of these German girls with their employment in this industry.
    Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of hostel accommodation is a very important factor in solving this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Our difficulty is not with hostels at the moment, but in getting girls.
    Mr. Odeyasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many European volunteer workers from Full Sutton camp have been detailed by his Department to take up certain employment; and how many have refused;
    (2) how many European volunteer workers from Full Sutton camp have been placed in employment and have since returned to this camp.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: From May, 1947, to the end of April, 1949, approximately 25,000 European volunteer workers were offered approved employment, and of these 153 have been reported for refusal to take it. From May, 1947, to 30th April, 1949, about 25,000 European volunteer workers from Full Sutton holding hostel were placed in employment for the first time. About 4,600 of these people returned to the hostel for further placing, and most of them have since been placed in other employment.
    Mr. Odey: Cannot arrangements be made to place these voluntary workers in gainful employment more quickly so that idle time is not left on their hands? When they have been offered employment and have refused, are they deprived of their meat ration?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The number of cases in which we have had a refusal is so small that it has not been necessary

    1637
    to take special measures. An indication of the smallness of the number is the figure of those who have had to be deported back to Germany, and that number is just under 200. That indicates that, on the whole, the European volunteer workers have reacted very well to the scheme and have played the game.
    Mr. Odeyasked the Minister of Labour whether, as the result of his inquiries into the damage caused by European volunteer workers at the Full Sutton camp in Yorkshire, he will now state what disciplinary action he proposes to take to ensure that the damage to neighbouring farms is not repeated.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As my right hon. Friend has already explained in correspondence with the hon. Member, the management of the camp are already doing all they can to prevent trespassing on surrounding property.
    Mr. Odey: Is there any point in the right hon. Gentleman's giving assurances to the farmers that he will protect them in this matter if he is not prepared to take any disciplinary action?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not indicated that there is no disciplinary action taken in this matter. Disciplinary action has been taken.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (EMIGRATION)
  Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour if his regulations permit young men, who because of physical disability are exempt from military service, to emigrate.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: There are no restrictions on emigration in such cases.
  Mr. Shephard: Can the Minister say whether any obstacles are placed in the way of young men in these circumstances? Does the young man in question have to obtain permission from the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry before he can emigrate?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not certain whether he has to obtain permission, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if that is the case, permission is granted very readily.

  SCOTLAND

    Building Workers
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour what was the shortage of building workers in Scotland on 31st March; and what steps are now being taken to build up the labour force necessary to increase the rate of house building in Scotland.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The total number of outstanding building and civil engineering vacancies on 31st March, 1949, was 2,642, including 1,164 for housing contracts. Every effort is being made to divert available labour to those housing contracts which are seriously short of labour, and housing vacancies are now being filled at the rate of 680 a week.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether the labour situation is really getting better or getting worse?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The fact that we are able to fill all the vacancies in Scotland is an indication that the position is very much easier.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: What is the cause of this shortage? Is it due to a drift of workers South, or is it due to their going into other trades? Does the Minister realise that it is having very serious results?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is due to the fact that we are starting very large contracts in Scotland and that it takes time to get a balance in the contracts as well as in the building industry.
    Mr. William Ross: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is presently proposing to place new responsibilities on the building industry in Scotland, will the Parliamentary Secretary make every effort to increase the available supplies of labour?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am going to Scotland next week to examine the position on the spot.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Stop there.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Works what percentage of building tradesmen in Scotland were engaged on the erection of permanent houses on 31st December, 1948, and 31st March, 1949.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): The percentages of building operatives employed on construction of permanent houses and preparation of housing sites on the two dates mentioned were 30.2 and 28.2 respectively. Both figures include direct labour employed by local authorities.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the rest of the building labour was employed, in view of the fact that such a small percentage was on house building?
    Mr. Key: This is house building. A very large part of the labour was engaged on house repair and maintenance, as well as on industrial and other building.

    Pig and Poultry Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now restore the allocation of feedingstuffs for pigs to those breeders of both pigs and poultry who lost their allocation for pigs last October when the new scheme for improvement of poultry stocks was introduced.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): No, Sir. Until the feeding-stuffs supply position is more assured, I am afraid no further improvement in ration issues is possible.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great deal of hardship is caused to many small people who have always been accustomed to keeping two or three pigs and who could continue to do so if an amount of feedingstuffs, small in comparison to the total, were made available to them? Is it good enough to remedy one hardship only to create another?
    Mr. Woodburn: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, part of the idea of the scheme was that the local small farmers should do something from their own resources in keeping pigs. We are very anxious to increase the pig population, and are continually examining the position with a view to helping as early as possible in this situation.

    Agricultural Wages
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the minimum rates of wages for agricul-
    1640
    tural workers fixed by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board from 23rd May; and how they compare with the rates prevailing in Scotland in 1938.
    Mr. Woodburn: In the case of male general workers of 20 years and over the minimum agricultural wage will be 94s. per week as compared with 32s. to 36s. 6d. in 1938.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Secretary of State confirm that skilled shepherds are now to get 104s. per week? Is not this the most remarkable piece of progress ever made in agriculture in Scotland?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I have not given the details of all the grades. This is a minimum wage. In Scotland skilled people are paid more than that. I will circulate detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shows the wisdom and foresight of Tory misrule, which set up these wages boards?
    Major McCallum: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 36s. in 1938 could buy a great deal more than 104s. today?
    Sir W. Smithers: What was the purchasing power of the pound sterling at the two dates?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that all these things will not influence the farm workers, who know they are much better off than ever they were.
    Following is the detailed information:
    The minimum agricultural wage rates to come into effect in Scotland on 23rd May for male workers of 20 years of age and over are 94s. per week for general workers; 104s. 3d. for shepherds; and 102s. 3d. for other specialists. For women workers of 18 and under 21 years the new rate will be 63s. 6d., and for specialists 71s.; with 70s. '6d. and 78s. 9d. respectively for women of 21 years and over.
    Proportional increases have been made in the hourly and overtime rates and also in the rates for juvenile workers.
    The comparable minimum rates for 1938 were: male general workers, 32s. to 36s. 6d.; shepherds, 35s. 6d. to 44s.;

    1641
    other specialists, 34s. 6d. to 45s.; women of 18 years and over, 21s. 6d. to 24s., with 26s. to 27s. for specialists.

    Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase there has been in the number of persons employed in the Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, since 5th July, 1948; and in which departments.
    Mr. Woodburn: There has been a net increase of 64. With permission, I shall circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether this increase is on the administrative side, and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the extra people employed are, in fact, fully occupied and necessary?
    Mr. Woodburn: There are only about six of them on administrative work. Over half of them are nurses, and the rest are in various sections of the medical staff.
    Following is the information:

    Department of Hospital

    Staff at 30th June, 1948

    Staff at 30th April, 1949

    Medical

    72

    67*

    Nursing

    320

    353

    Domestic

    212

    230

    Technical (X-ray, laboratory, physiotherapy, etc.

    28

    37

    Administration

    41

    47

    673

    734

    Specialist†

    31

    34

    Totals

    704

    768

    * Excluding vacancies.

    † Honorary and consultant staffs in June, 1948, now regional appointments based on the hospital.

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Hubbardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of applications for hearing aids under the National Health Service in Scotland and the number for whom the only type of hearing aid has been proved to be unsuitable;
    (2) if he will make other types of hearing aids available to applicants under the National Health Service when the Medresco hearing aid is unsuitable;
    1642
    (3) if he will make all types of hearing aids available to applicants under the National Health Service on condition of payment of additional cost.
    Mr. Woodburn: The number of applications for Medresco hearing aids under the National Health Service in Scotland is 6,486. So far 1,278 have been issued. Complete figures of persons for whom the aid is unsuitable are not available, but the proportion is estimated at less than 10 per cent. The Medresco aid was based on research carried out by the Medical Research Council, and I am advised that it is suitable in its present form for the great majority of patients. Further experimental work is being carried on to develop an additional type to meet the needs of the remainder. It is intended also that research and development work will continue. In view of the arrangements which I have mentioned, I cannot undertake to provide commercial hearing aids.
    Mr. Hubbard: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there are at the moment other types of hearing aid that would be suitable, and that there is a large proportion of applicants, 10 per cent. of the total, who could be assisted if he would make that type of aid available? Is it thought likely that the Medresco type of hearing aid will be made suitable for them?
    Mr. Woodburn: All we can hope is that the new device we are expecting to be developed will be as successful in relation to other patients as the Medresco hearing aid has been in relation to the majority of patients.

    Three-Apartment Houses
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons which have led to a relaxation in his policy concerning the building of three-apartment houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: Since the cessation of the temporary house scheme, several local authorities have reported difficulties in providing suitable accommodation for small families, and where it is shown that a real need exists, a limited proportion of three-apartment permanent houses is being allowed for this purpose.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that three-apartment houses already form a high percentage

    1643
    of our housing accommodation, and that a large proportion of these houses are grossly overcrowded; and will he take steps to prevent a perpetuation of this overcrowding?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. These three-apartment houses are being provided for a different purpose. Where an authority is developing a new estate, it is obvious that three-apartment houses in some other part of the town would not fit in with the general housing development, and these houses, are being provided with a view to getting balanced development in each housing site.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of overcrowding is due to the fact that there are several small families in one house who need separate houses, and will he persevere with the building of three-apartment houses?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not use the same argument to allow two-apartment houses?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes. Sir; although there are cases where local authorities may want to build two-apartment houses for old age pensioners living alone, and in those exceptional circumstances that may be allowed.

    Key Workers (Houses)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special steps are being taken to meet those housing shortages which, according to Command Paper No. 7676, Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1948, are holding up the development of forestry, mining and new industries, and the transfer of the unemployed to areas where there are unfilled vacancies.
    Mr. Woodburn: I would refer the hon. Member to what is said on this subject in paragraphs 76, 97 and 246 of the Report. Later information shows that the Forestry Commission have completed 149 houses out of a programme of 605 so far approved, that 8,772 houses have been let to miners since the war, and that 1,022 houses have been approved or made available for key workers.
    Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the steps which he proposes to take will not simply result in a diversion of houses, but in an increase in the size of the programme?
    Mr. Woodburn: Some of these houses are being arranged in such a way as to provide a livelihood for people who go to live in the houses. When the key workers are housed, this will provide a livelihood for a great number of workers once the industry is established.
    Commander Galbraith: Is it not a fact that houses provided for the development of forestry are service houses?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir.

    Industry and Employment
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to publish a popular edition of Command Paper No. 7676, Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1948.
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. The White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland is a plain factual review of trends and developments during 1948 and I do not think that it calls for a popular edition each year.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not a fact that the existing edition is a very popular edition and that no second edition is required?

  PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Robert Kimm Jeffrey, c/o Adams, 21, Granville Street, Glasgow, C.3, who had his disability pension withdrawn in May, 1944, but had a decision of the special review tribunal in his favour in November, 1948, is still waiting for payment of the pension arrears due; and when payment may be expected.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The payment of pension in respect of Mr. Jeffrey's disability was resumed on 7th January. Arrears for the period May, 1944, to January, 1949, have now been paid.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Officers (Travel Warrants)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War if he will review the regulations by which officers below the rank of major are now issued with third-class travel warrants for journeys by train; and what is the reason for these regulations.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The regulation, which dates from 1935, provides that officers below the rank of substantive major travelling by train at public expense will journey third class unless necessarily travelling in uniform, when they will travel first class. In this respect when not in uniform their entitlement is similar to that of other corresponding grades in the Government Service. The post-war regulations for travelling generally are in course of preparation.
    Major Beamish: In reviewing these regulations, will the Minister bear in mind that, owing to the very high cost of civilian clothing and the fact that more than half of those receiving commissions in these days have no private income of their own, the whole situation has altered since before the war? Will he give careful thought to that point?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not without sympathy in this matter.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend also keep before him the fact that one of his declared purposes is to democratise the British Army?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that it is most inadvisable for officers to travel with ratings, whether they are in uniform or whether they are in civilian clothes?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a point that has not been overlooked.

    Married Quarters, Sandhurst
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters are provided for officers instructing at the Royal Military Academy; and how many married officers are on the strength of the Academy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Twenty-two married quarters are occupied by military officers
    1646
    at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. There are 88 married officers on the strength of the Academy.
    Major Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a disgraceful state of affairs if only one-quarter of those on the strength of the Academy are enabled 'to live in married quarters, and is he further aware of the very high cost of obtaining other accommodation?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of all the difficulties, but we have plans in preparation in order to remedy the defects. This is not a new problem; it is a problem which has accumulated over a long period of years.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that this problem is much more serious now than it was before the war, and that what these officers and other ranks want are not plans but houses; and will he try to cease showing such masterly inactivity in this matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: The problem has only become more serious because of our anxiety to solve it.
    Mr. Berry: Can my right hon. Friend say how many married officers were provided with quarters when the Royal Academy was at Woolwich?
    Mr. Shinwell: In fact, the position was exceedingly bad before this Government came into office.
    Sir W. Smithers: It is worse now.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not worse now.

    King's Regulations
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to consolidate King's Regulations and remove the present difficulty of ascertaining what Regulations are subject to amendment; and when the last revised edition was issued.
    Mr. Shinwell: The last complete revision of King's Regulations was published in 1940. A reprint of this edition, incorporating amendments to February, 1945, was issued in 1945. A fresh revision will be undertaken as soon as practicable, but I regret that this cannot be at an early date, in view of the pressure of work.
    Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the state of King's Regulations and the difficulties with which officers are confronted in keeping them up to date when they have so many duties in other directions, and will he hasten the issue of an up-to-date edition?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are very anxious to comply with the hon. Gentleman's request. A great many modifications have taken place since the end of the war, and the Army has not yet resumed its normal state. It requires to reach a condition of normality before we can do what is required.
    Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that the amendments of King's Regulations should be of two kinds—the urgent ones to be issued immediately, and the less urgent to await eventual reprint?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that matter.

    Ammunition Dumps
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for War how many troops in the United Kingdom are detailed for the protection and demolition of dumps of ammunition left over as surplus to requirements.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not the policy to give any analysis of the strength of the Army other than that shown in Army Estimates.
    Sir R. Glyn: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that if a lot of troops are engaged in these duties that does not add to the efficiency of the Army?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have a very large number of troops engaged in these important duties, but that is no reason why we should give the precise categories.

    Territorial Army Recruits (Personal Information)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men joining the Territorial Army are required to reply to a number of personal questions concerning Christian names and surnames of parents, mother's maiden name, address of birth, etc.; why a simple statement of the name and address of next-of-kin is not sufficient; and if, in view of the embarrassment caused to those who were
    1648
    born out of wedlock, he will consider reducing such questions to a minimum
    Mr. Shinwell: In the normal case the information asked for as to parentage is limited to the nationality at birth of father and mother, and it is not found in practice that the answering of these questions involves embarrassment. The same questions are put to Regular recruits and National Service men and similar information is asked for from applicants for civilian employment in the Government service. In certain cases where there is an alien connection or the applicant was born in a foreign country, further details are asked for, but they are kept to the minimum consistent with the requirements of security. All information obtained is, of course, treated as confidential.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cases to which I am referring are not those of aliens or of men with alien connections, and that real embarrassment can be caused, especially in the Territorial Army, when a man may be asked for particulars about his family in front of a lot of other people from the same neighbourhood; and is he sure that the practice is uniform in all parts of the country?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the practice is not uniform and does not bear out what I have said in reply to my hon. Friend's Question, I should like to make inquiries, and perhaps he will give me further particulars.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when information of this personal kind is asked for in the Territorial Army, it is not asked for, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in front of a number of people, but confidentially in a small office?

    Tattoos
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for War if, in order to encourage recruiting, he will consider starting the tattoos at Aldershot and at Tidworth again.
    Mr. Shinwell: The matter has been under consideration recently, but it is not considered practicable to hold large-scale tattoos during this year or next. Local tattoos will, however, be held,

    1649
    where the general officer commanding-in-chief is satisfied that desirable objects can be achieved without undue interference with training.

    Bands (Civil Engagements)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the attempt of the Musicians' Union to prevent military bands from playing at civil entertainments; and whether he will give an assurance that no interference with the bands of His Majesty's Forces will be tolerated in future.
    Mr. Shinwell: Subject to the exigencies of the Service, Army bands are permitted to accept civil engagements of a nonpolitical character, under certain conditions, one of which is that the terms shall not be lower than those which would in the same circumstances be accepted by a civilian band of the same size in the same locality. I am not prepared to recommend the withdrawal of the longstanding permission given to Service bands to enter into engagements of this kind in accordance with the approved regulations.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the case which gave rise to this Question there was no undercutting by the Band of the Grenadier Guards, and that the demand of the Musicians' Union that the promoters of the ball should either cancel the show or send the band of the Grenadier Guards away was therefore nothing short of blackmail?
    Mr. Shinwell: If there was any blackmail it is for the aggrieved parties to take proceedings.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after their original refusal to allow the military band to play, the union representatives offered, apparently as an afterthought, kindly to allow the band to play so long as they did not do so in uniform; and would that meet with his approval?
    Mr. Shinwell: Well, I cannot help what happened on that occasion, but I have stated the quite definite principle by which I intend to stand.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the appearance of military bands in uniform is always a popular
    1650
    feature at civilian functions, and calculated to assist recruiting?
    Mr. Shinwell: Entirely apart from the recruiting objective, I do not imagine that the public would take kindly to any proposal to prevent Army bands from appearing in public.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Secretary of State consider allowing the members of these military bands to join the Musicians' Union?
    Mr. Shinwell: They have already got a very close corporation and I see no reason for any other.

    Soldier's Death (Notification)
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for War what medical examination was given Private George F. Carroll, 17th Platoon, "B" Company, Royal Army Pay Corps, T/c., prior to his enrolment as Grade I; and why his parents were not notified of his removal to hospital, where he was for over two weeks, until the day before his death and too late for them to see him.
    Mr. Shinwell: This soldier was given the usual medical examination by the Ministry of Labour before he joined the Army. Official notification of admission to hospital is sent to the next-of-kin only when a patient is unable to write or is placed on the seriously or dangerously ill list. In this case the soldier was not unable to write on admission to hospital. He was placed on the dangerously ill list on 2nd April, when a telegram was immediately sent to his parents, who I understand were unfortunately not able to reach the military hospital at Aldershot from Glasgow until within a few minutes of the death of their son. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with them.
    Mr. Leonard: Is the Secretary of State aware that this soldier had four examinations, two of them by specialists, and an X-ray, and that the authorities were well aware of the health of the soldier in his civilian life; and in view of 'the fact that this regrettable state of affairs has arisen in this case, will he take steps to see that the civilian health histories of, soldiers, especially when doubts such as existed in this case have been adequately displayed, are considered in future?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot see that anything wrong was done in this particular case. I am advised that the cause of death was rheumatic fever and bronchial pneumonia, and I would imagine from that that it must he attributable to his service.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Secretary of State aware that a Glasgow boy dropped dead in Egypt; and in cases which are now being passed from the Ministry of Labour, where there are doubts about the heart condition of the individual, should not the benefit of the doubt be given to the man so that these tragedies do not occur?
    Mr. Shinwell: Many allegations are made and I should like to have confirmation by having the exact particulars.
    Mr. McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman has them.
    Mr. Leonard: Does the machinery for dealing with this not allow the Secretary of State and his people to have knowledge of the civilian health of a soldier; and does not the fact that four specific examinations were required to eliminate doubt indicate that there must have been such a doubt as should have been exercised in favour of the soldier so that he was not graded A.1?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not see that that has anything to do with the case. This is simply a question whether we should have informed the next-of-kin. As it happens, on admission to hospital the soldier himself was able to write to his relatives; and secondly, in the opinion of the medical authorities of the hospital, he was not then dangerously ill.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Development Charge
    Mr. Charles Smithasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the aggregate amount so far collected in development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
    Mr. McGheeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the actual amount of development charges collected by the Central Land Board up to the last convenient date.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the total amount so far received by the Central Land Board in respect of development charge.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): Up to the end of April approximately £715,000 had been paid in respect of development charge. A further £731,000 had been determined and set off against claims on the £300 million.
    Mr. Stokes: Is this collection up to my right hon. Friend's expectations at this date?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why compulsory powers of purchase were not used in favour of Mr. Gould, 70A, Tudor Road, Cardiff, who applied for the assistance of the Central Land Board over a year ago.
    Mr. Silkin: The decision whether to make a compulsory purchase order under Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has been entrusted by Parliament to the Central Land Board and I cannot undertake to answer questions about individual cases. I am concerned only when an order has been made by the Board and submitted to me for confirmation.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much confusion about the workings of the Central Land Board; and will he give some indication of the general principles upon which they decide whether compulsory powers shall be exercised?
    Mr. Silkin: If I am asked the question, I shall certainly consider giving a reply.
    Mr. Thomas: I have asked my right hon. Friend the question, and I should be very glad to have his reply.

    Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead
    Viscountess Davidsonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the number of full-time administrative staff employed on each of the new towns

    1653
    of Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead on 31st March, 1949; and the total cost up to that date of administrative salaries and any other unremunerative expenses or commitments not directly connected with the housing of persons moved from London.
    Mr. Silkin: I assume that the noble Lady has in mind the whole of the office staff in both cases; in that event the answer to the first part of the Question is Stevenage 80, and Hemel Hempstead 106. As to the second part, I am not clear precisely what the noble Lady has in mind. Under the New Towns Act accounts have to be prepared by corporations and laid before Parliament. The accounts for the year ended 31st March last have not yet been received but when they are published she will, I hope, be able to extract the information she desires.
    Viscountess Davidsonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the number of houses in the new towns of Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead which had been started for persons moved from London by 31st March, 1949; and the number actually occupied by that date.
    Mr. Silkin: Work has now begun at Hemel Hempstead on 100 houses, a large proportion of which will be available for persons from London. The small number of houses so far built at Stevenage have not been primarily for persons from London. It is hoped that before long each corporation will be starting work on further instalments.

    Single House Plots
    Mr. C. Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficult position of certain single plot holders who bought land after 1st July, 1948, with assignment of any compensation rights possessed by the former owners in respect of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act, but who are excluded from the benefits of the scheme described in the Central Land Board pamphlet, "House 2"; and whether, with a view to obviating hardship, he will extend the provisions of this pamphlet to those who bought land for the erection of a house for their own occupation during the first few months after the Act came into force.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Ample warning was given beforehand of the effects of the 1947 Act, and the fact that these purchasers took an assignment of the vendor's Part VI claim indicates that they were not unaware of its provisions. They stand in a different position from those who bought before the Act came into full operation. It is regretted, therefore, that it is impossible to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend amplify what he means by saying that they stand in a different position from those who bought the land before the Act came into full operation, since there are people who did buy land before 5th July, 1948?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Sterling (Value)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to devalue the £ sterling.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and learned Friend to make up his mind soon whether he intends to devalue in one, two or three months, and so end the uncertainty?
    Mr. Jay: My right hon. and learned Friend has already made up his mind that any such step as this is neither necessary nor desirable.

    Income Tax Acts (Codification)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when the general revision of the Income Tax Acts is under consideration, attention will be paid to the method of appointment of general commissioners and to the property qualification; and how soon he anticipates that it will be possible to revise these provisions.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. This question will be dealt with when the Income Tax Acts are codified but I cannot say when that will be.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider

    1655
    making payment of post-war credits to anyone who is medically assured is incapable of living more than a limited time, and will thus be unable to receive their credits at the age of 60 or 65.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The difficulties of extending special treatment in cases of hardship have frequently been explained in Debate.
    Mr. Bossom: Is not this a particularly heartless reply when the right hon. Gentleman is asked to consider the suggestion that these people should have a little more money before they die in order that they can have the opportunity of enjoying the few luxuries to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the very great concern widely felt at the very unsympathetic attitude of the Treasury towards cases of hardship, as evidenced by the fact that the Treasury are not prepared to find out what it would cost to make the concession?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it any good asking the Treasury to reconsider this question, because, although the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the difficulties of the position have been explained, they have not convinced us on this side of the House or the people who think they are suffering a grievance?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot help that. We have discussed this many times and the prime difficulty is one of definition.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not take the same steps to burke the discussion of this matter on the Finance Bill as his right hon. and learned Friend has done with the Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not know that it was my right hon. and learned Friend. It was the House which agreed to the Resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—
    Mr. Stanley: Who proposed it?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and if he is criticising the House, that is another matter. I have not the slightest doubt that this question will be raised during the Debates on the Finance Bill, and if that is so an answer will be given.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise what a dangerous thing it is for any doctor to say to his patient that he can only live a limited length of time?
    Mr. Harold Davies: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate of what this concession might cost if it were conceded?

    Petrol Duty (Farm Tractors)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why he has not found it possible to consider favourably the scheme submitted by the National Farmers' Union and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland for the repeal of the duty on petrol used for agricultural farm tractors and machinery and horticultural equipment;
    (2) if he has considered the scheme submitted by Norfolk Tractors, Limited, for the removal of petrol tax on farm tractors; and what decision he has reached.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be necessary to define with sufficient exactness the purposes for which petrol is to be free of taxation; and, secondly, to have means of administering the exemption effectively and with fairness to all concerned. In my right hon. and learned Friend's opinion, neither of these requirements could be met in the case the hon. Member refers to.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make a simple rule, at any rate in the case of tractors which are driven by petrol, in order that a reduction could be made?

    Development Value (Claims)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for compensation for loss of development value have so far been made; and how much the total claims made to this date are.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The number of claims received up to the end of April was approximately 100,000. The amount is not known as claimants are not obliged to state the amount claimed.
    Mr. Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of approximately 100,000 claims is up to the estimate which

    1657
    his Department originally thought would be the number of claims?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The number is quite academic. It is what the claims stand for, and as yet that is not known. I am sorry that without notice I cannot answer the question put to me by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great strain put on professional men to get these claims in by the last day of June, which is the present tinal day, and will he consider extending the time?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The time has already been extended once and we cannot go on extending it.

    War Damage Commission (Interviews)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many personal interviews have been granted in the last 12 months by the Chairman of the War Damage Commission to persons desirous of raising with him questions with reference to decisions of the Commission.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am informed by the Chairman of the War Damage Commission that statistical records are not kept of the number of such interviews, but that it must be very large.
    He cannot, however, undertake to interview claimants or their advisers personally on individual cases, if only because the number of notified claims is over 3½ million. He is always, of course, ready to see an hon. Member about cases raised by his constituents, or to arrange for applicants themselves to be seen by senior officers as appropriate.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Chairman follow the salutary practice of granting an interview in cases where there is a conflict between officials of the Commission and members of the public, and in which substantial issues are raised?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Chairman of the War Damage Commission follows the practice I have outlined?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What does that mean?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: He sees hon. Members.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Household Textiles (Prices)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the substantial increase in the cost of towels, sheets, curtains and similar materials since these were taken off points; that most of the present available supplies are priced higher than utility goods; and what steps he is taking to secure a reduction in the prices charged to the consumer.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am not aware of any increase in the price of household textiles since the removal of coupon rationing of these goods on 15th March, 1949. Since rationing was abolished the considerable demand for these articles has been principally for utility goods and the result is that until stocks are replenished there is a higher proportion of non-utility household textiles in the shops. As these bear Purchase Tax and are often made of more expensive yarns, they are dearer than utility lines. We hope to increase the volume of utility production and this will enable housewives to buy more of the cheaper utility goods.

    New Factories, Wales
    Mr. Daggarasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factories and extensions, respectively, that have been erected in Wales and Monmouthshire; also the number approved since December, 1944, up to the latest available date.
    Mr. H. Wilson: One hundred and fifty-eight new factories and 225 extensions to existing factories of 5,000 sq. ft. and over were approved in Wales and Monmouthshire during the period December, 1944, to February, 1949. Of these 83 new factories and 91 extensions have been completed.

    Seed Imports
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade how soon the hon. Member for Maldon may expect the reply concerning imports of flower seeds promised him shortly in a letter from his Department dated 25th February.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am sorry that I cannot yet give my hon. Friend a final reply. I am still in consultation with my

    1659
    right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about seed imports generally, including flower seeds, and I hope to be in a position to send him a reply shortly.
    Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say how he defines "shortly," since he said "shortly" on 27th February?
    Mr. Wilson: As soon as possible.

    Italian Estates (Release)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds the £10 million, held in London for the House of Savoy, has been released for payment in sterling, when all other financial deposits owned by Italians have been made available in lire.
    Mr. H. Wilson: This estate has not been treated specially but was dealt with strictly in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the Italian Government for application to the estates of Italians who died during the war. The property was released from the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property to the Attorney-Administrators so that, upon obtaining letters of administration, they could deal with the estate in the normal course. I may add that my hon. Friend has been misinformed as to the amount of the estate which was very much less than the figure quoted by him.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Nevertheless, is the President of the Board of Trade aware that what has been done has created an extremely unfavourable impression with all Italian Republicans as well as large sections of public opinion in this country, and why should preferential treatment have been given to these people who at the time appeared to be nothing but the tools of Mussolini?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not so aware, and as I have stated this case has been dealt with exactly as any other case would be dealt with under the arrangements agreed to with the Italian Government.
    Mr. Keeling: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why some of this money has not been taken to meet the obligations of the Italian Government on Austrian bonds held in this country?
    Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

    Newsprint Rationing
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that provincial newspapers with page sizes above 250 square inches are being penalised by the current regulations of the Newsprint Division of his Department; and whether, with a view to righting an anomaly, he will now consider rationing paper to such concerns on a. basis not of pages as such but of Demy equivalent.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The present basis of newsprint rationing which has been in force since 1940 does not distinguish between provincial and other newspapers, and I am unable to accept the suggestion in the first part of the Question. Rationing on a Demy equivalent basis would be much more difficult to administer than the present scheme, and I am not aware that there is any considerable body of opinion in the trade which would welcome the change.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not the President aware that during the war a large number of these smaller newspapers agreed to reduce the size of their pages and that the size of the page was then frozen by the Board of Trade? Since then increases have been made on a page basis, and surely that is very unfair?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, it was not frozen by the Board of Trade but was dealt with by the Newsprint Rationing Committee. I agree that, whatever the size for rationing, it would have created anomalies and hardship in that particular size.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister do something about it?

    Wool Textile Industry (Development Council)
    Mr. Dryden Brookasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement on the outcome of the discussions which have taken place concerning the establishment of a Development Council for the wool textile industry.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. The negotiations which Sir Richard Hopkins has been carrying out in Bradford at my request with both sides of the wool textile industry have not led to agreed proposals for a central body for the industry. A

    1661
    compromise proposal which was suggested by Sir Richard Hopkins and which I was prepared to endorse was not accepted by one side of the industry. I am satisfied, however, after most careful consideration of Sir Richard Hopkin's report and of the separate views which have subsequently been expressed to me by each side of the industry that it is in the best interests of the industry that a Development Council should be set up. I have, therefore, decided to proceed with the arrangements for the establishment of a statutory Development Council which will have the functions of promoting exports, research and design and of advising the industry and the Government on matters reviewed in the Working Party Report. I shall publish detailed proposals on these lines with a draft Order as soon as possible and invite comments from interested parties.

  INLAND WATER SURVEY
  Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to continue the work of the Inland Water Survey which was interrupted by the war; and to make public the facts which are vital to the future prosperity of the country.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): This survey was seriously handicapped before the war by two factors. First, there was no requirement on persons abstracting water from underground to keep records of the water abstracted, and to supply the Government with those records. This has now been rectified by Regulations made under Section 6 of the Water Act, 1945. Secondly, there was a lack of information on river flows owing to the paucity of gauges on rivers. The River Boards Act, 1948, has placed a duty on river boards to instal gauges on their rivers and to keep records of the flows. As these records of underground and surface water resources become available, it is proposed from time to time to publish the information, and it is expected that the next publication will be in about 18 months.
  Sir R. Glyn: May I ask whether the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are being kept fully informed as to the availability of water?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Sir.

  RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION)
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Supply how soon he anticipates he will have enough .22 rifle ammunition to enable rifle clubs to have the parctice essential in maintaining their members' rifle-shooting proficiency.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): The manufacturers have increased supplies of .22 ammunition considerably in recent weeks, and expect to be able to maintain for the rest of the year a rate of supply sufficient to meet the stated requirements of the national association, for the use, of rifle clubs.

  INDIAN ARMY EX-SERVICE MEN (MOTOR CARS)
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why it is necessary to obtain the consent of the Government of India for the supply of a motor car to a disabled British ex-Service man, whose disabilities are such as to qualify him for the supply of a free motor car under the scheme now in force.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I assume that the hon. and learned Member is referring to a British ex-Service man who had served in the Indian Armed Forces. The pensions and other benefits of disabled ex-Service men of those forces are the responsibility of the Government of India, on whom the cost would fall. It is therefore necessary to obtain the consent of that Government to the provision of motor cars for such ex-Service men.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Am I to understand that a British ex-Service man 100 per cent. disabled, whose physical condition would have entitled him to a car under the scheme, is debarred from getting it for an indefinite period if he joined, or was transferred to, the Indian Army during the war? Cannot a car be issued to such people now and the question of cost be gone into later?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: There are very wide implications in this matter. The basic fact is that decisions for men who were in the Indian Forces have to be made by

  1663
  the Indian Government, whereas for those who are in our own Forces we can decide for ourselves. We always recognised the difficulties that might arise in questions like this. I am in communication with the Indian Government on the matter.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: How many British ex-Service men are affected, and how long will they have to wait before they are issued with cars? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an issue now, and taking up the question of cost afterwards?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will consider anything, but I cannot answer that question myself. I should have to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that the number who need cars can be very large, because this is the first case I have ever heard of.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: If that is so, it should be easy to provide cars for the few people affected.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot establish a new principle without agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Are not the Government of this country morally responsible for the emoluments that should be given to all their servants, whether employed by this Government or by the Government of India?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The main principle of the arrangements made has frequently been explained to the House and been approved by Parliament.

EQUALISATION GRANTS (MONEY RESOLUTIONS)
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): When the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill was in Committee, an Amendment was placed on the Order Paper requiring the local authority to keep a register showing the standard rent of every house in its area to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply. This Amendment was not called, because it was out of Order. After some discussion my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health undertook to look into the position and consider whether any change in the rules of procedure was
1664
desirable. The reason why the Amendment was out of Order is briefly as follows:
The Local Government Act, 1948, introduced a new system of equalisation grants payable to local authorities whose rateable value per head is below the average. This grant differs from the old block grant which it replaced in that any increase in the expenditure of an authority receiving equalisation grant results directly and immediately in an increase in its equalisation grant. Consequently any Bill increasing rate-borne expenditure by more than an insignificant amount now requires cover in the Financial Resolution for the resulting increase in equalisation grant. The Government considered this position at the time when the Local Government Act became law, and decided that, while it would require certain changes in Procedure in relation to Private Bills, no change should be proposed in relation to public Bills.
The duties placed on local authorities by the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill, as introduced, were not sufficient to cause expenditure of more than an insignificant amount, and it was not therefore considered necessary to provide in the Financial Resolution for any increase in equalisation grant. The Amendment requiring local authorities to keep registers of the rents of all houses to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply would have caused considerable expense to the rates, and therefore an increase in equalisation grant. As the Financial Resolution did not provide for such an increase, the Amendment was out of Order and could not be called.
At first sight my right hon. Friend was inclined to take the view that the rules should be amended so as to enable Debate on such proposals to take place in the future, but now that there has been an opportunity to examine the matter, we do not think that any change is required. Where a Public Bill, as introduced, puts any substantial duty on local authorities, a Financial Resolution will be put down for the Bill to cover the resulting increase in equalisation grant, and we can draft it in wide terms, which will not prevent hon. Members from moving Amendments which might increase the charge on the rates.
The only question that arises is, therefore, whether we should invite the House

1665
so to amend its Procedure that a Clause putting a substantial duty on local authorities could be moved in Committee, on a Bill which did not put any such duty on them when it was introduced. We do not think that such a change is necessary; the particular circumstances that led to the difficulty on the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill are not likely to be of very frequent occurrence.
Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that a very large call is made at the present time upon local authorities to give information to enable landlords and tenants to ascertain the standard rent, and as that entails upon local authorities a heavy expenditure, does not my right hon. Friend think it advisable that the Government should recommend a change to enable standard rents to be registered, instead of continuing to incur the daily expense that now falls on local authority officers?
Mr. Morrison: On the merits of the case, we do not so think. I am not so much referring to the merits of the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) was proposing, but to a point of procedure. I think that the statement I have made is in itself sound.
Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries about this matter?

PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS (RULES)
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make before we get on to the Business of the day. It has been brought to my notice that certain persons are representing themselves as Parliamentary agents without possessing the necessary qualifications. A set of rules on the subject was approved and issued by the Speaker in 1938 under the authority of the House, and therefore any person contravening these rules is liable to be dealt with by the House for a contempt.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Licensing Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LICENSING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION WHERE LICENSED PREMISES ACQUIRED.)
(1) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section five of the New Towns Act, 1946 (which relates to the provision of accommodation where land is acquired by a development corporation) a development corporation shall not have any duty to afford, to a person formerly carrying on a business of selling intoxicating liquor by retail on land in a State management district, any opportunity of obtaining alternative accommodation for such a business.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, where licensed premises in a new town are acquired by the Secretary of State under section five of this Act, and in consequence of the acquisition the resident tenant or manager quits the premises, the provisions of subsection (2) of section five of the New Towns Act, 1946, shall have effect, so far as relates to the provision of living accommodation for the resident tenant or manager, as if the premises had been acquired by the development corporation under the said Act of 1946.
(3) In this section the expression "resident tenant or manager," in relation to premises acquired by the Secretary of State as aforesaid, means a person who, immediately before the acquisition thereof by the Secretary of State, was residing in the premises and was either the holder of the justices' licence in respect thereof or was employed as manager of the premises by the holder of the licence.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Section 5 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946, development corporations are under an obligation to secure so far as practicable that persons living or carrying on business on land acquired by a corporation shall have an opportunity to obtain on land belonging to the corporation accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements. In view of the extension of State management to the new towns, Clause 8 (2) relieves the corporations of this responsibility so far as business accommodation is concerned. When we were considering this matter in the Standing Committee it was pointed out

1667
that where licensed premises are acquired by the State, neither the Secretary of State nor the development corporation would be under any obligation to secure domestic accommodation for a licensee who does not enter State employment but still wishes for some reason or other to stay on in the new town. I undertook to endeavour to meet this point and I believe that the new Clause does so. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the development corporations and they at once agreed that they would do their best to assist in cases of the kind in question. I believe that the Clause will redeem the pledge which I gave in Committee.
Mr. Grimston: As the Home Secretary said, the Clause meets the pledge he gave, but while I acknowledge that quite readily, it does not go as far as we should wish. In considering this matter it is as well to look at the background. Through this Bill the Home Secretary is saying to a man, "I am going to turn you out of your tenancy of your public house or out of the managership, but I will find you alternative accommodation to live in." That is rather like an executioner saying to a man, "I am going to cut off your head, but you have nothing to complain about because I will provide you with a good coffin." We have an Amendment on the Order Paper in which we propose to take this a stage further. It should be clearly understood that in such a case a man finds himself in this unfortunate position of being turned out of a job, through the action of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has partly met the hardship by bringing back a part of the New Towns Act which was originally taken away. I reserve further remarks until the discussion of the Amendment. We thank the Home Secretary for redeeming his pledge to the extent indicated in the new Clause.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). The Home Secretary has perpetrated two wrongs by his action and he has attempted to put one of those wrongs right while leaving the far more serious wrong of depriving a man of his livelihood at his whim or the whim of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not quite sure whose whim T should
1668
choose. I am in some doubt as to how far the Home Secretary has succeeded in righting one wrong. Under Section 5 (2) of the New Towns Act the responsibility devolves upon the development corporation to find alternative accommodation. That is the relevance of the citation of that subsection in the Clause.
That is quite simple so far as the development corporation carries responsibility itself for its own actions in new towns, but we have rather a different set of circumstances here. I am not quite clear what will happen in the event of the Home Secretary not exercising his powers immediately during the life of the development corporation but exercising them to acquire the premises after the development corporation has ceased to exist and the local government is handed over to a new local authority. I cannot trace anything in the New Towns Act which in itself would cover that point, but if there is anything in the Act, we are leaving a gap in this Clause in not quoting the section which refers to such a situation. It is a very embarrassing situation for the development corporations and the right hon. Gentleman. He is taking steps which will place a liability on the development corporations. The problem now is how a development corporation can transfer that liability to the new local authority when it is set up. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to resolve my doubts, but I see no means in the Clause of making sure that that liability will be willingly undertaken by the local authority when it is born.
Air-Commodore Harvey: My hon. Friend has said that the Home Secretary has kept his word on this matter which was discussed at considerable length in the Standing Committee, but I still think that these men are being treated most unfairly. If we take a man probably at 60 who has been a publican most of his life, acquire his property and tell him that he must get out and that he will be given a cottage or some other home, what is he to do for a living? How is he to pay his rent and keep his family? It is a most serious situation. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the matter further to see if such men can be given manager-ships of the State-owned houses, or some form of compensation. There will otherwise be real hardship for men who are

1669
to be turned out of their homes at fairly short notice.
Mr. Fairhurst: I am surprised to hear such a suggestion coming from the Opposition. I have in mind what happened 20 to 30 years ago. When textile and steel workers lost their work in their hundreds there was no question that alternative work should be found for them; they were left to find their own jobs. I am not suggesting that the Minister should not do something about it now but I cannot understand the change of face of the Opposition on such a matter.
Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) gave rather a different example from that with which we are dealing here. The Home Secretary is taking power to dispossess people of their living, and that does not happen in ordinary life. We feel strongly that if we give anyone in the Government power to dispossess people of their means of livelihood, whether in England, Wales or Scotland, they have a definite grievance against the State. It is up to the State to be the model employer, but far from preventing grievances, the State seems to be creating them.
Although I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has gone some way to help us in this matter, yet some of us feel there are difficulties. After all, he is creating the grievance, he is depriving a man of his livelihood. I am not sure whether the new corporation or, eventually the new local authority, will be responsible for finding the man a livelihood. These men, or possibly women, may be faced with a difficult position, and I add my voice to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). Might it not be possible for the Home Secretary to use his influence so that these men could be found at any rate temporary employment quickly under the corporation?
Mr. Ede: I am glad that hon. Members who have spoken have acknowledged that I have redeemed the pledge which I gave in Committee, and therefore I gather they have no real grievance against me but are suggesting that this Clause does not go far enough. I dealt with that point also in Committee. These new towns will have an expanding population, and in every case there will be
1670
an increase in the number of licensed houses. Therefore my problem will be to get sufficient people to manage these public houses, where they are houses under State management, in order that the work can be carried on efficiently. I do not think any large number of people will come into the category which hon. Members have described. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) talked as if for the next few years I should be engaged in taking over public houses, throwing out the tenants or managers, and putting in new people. My problem will be precisely the reverse. In the majority of cases the existing tenant or manager will be found employment by the State management scheme.
However, there may be a few, for their own reasons, who desire not to pass over to the new scheme. I recognise the hardship there would be in a new town if a man were placed in the position that, because of the change in management of the licensed trade, he was deprived of his domestic accommodation. He might be perfectly willing to give up his trade, but he would not want to move out of the district because he has friends and acquaintances there, his local bowls club is there. He might still want to go round to the place he had kept and see how it was being run under the new management. That would not be possible unless domestic accommodation was found for him. I have undertaken that the development corporation shall be responsible for finding him that domestic accommodation if he cannot find it for himself, and I think that deals sufficiently with the matter.
3.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) asked what would happen when the development corporation disappeared. That will be some years ahead, but I shall have that point examined because I do not want to ride off on this and leave some unfortunate fellow in 10 or 12 years' time up in the air, any more than I would desire to do so within the next few months. If it is necessary to deal with this point, I shall arrange to have it dealt with in another place.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Thank you.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
But the Secretary of State shall as far as practicable secure that any resident tenant of licensed premises in a new town, which are acquired by the Secretary of State under section five of this Act, shall have the opporunity to remain the tenant of the said premises under conditions not less favourable than those under which he was tenant thereof immediately before the premises were so acquired.
This covers a slightly different point from the one which we have just been discussing. Perhaps I can best make it clear to the House by quoting from the remarks of the Home Secretary in Standing Committee on the point. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I said that so far as it is practicable it would be my desire to see that persons who became dispossessed in this way were in fact made the tenants and managers of the houses in the new towns. I admit that that is only a Ministerial statement and can, of course, be evaded by anyone who wishes to evade it under the exact terms of the Bill. Between now and the Report stage I will consider whether it is practicable to find a form of words which would enable the point of view that I expressed to find some appropriate expression in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd March, 1949; c. 413.]
I want to be perfectly fair to the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to say that he did not want it to be thought that he intended to do other than to make an attempt to find words. I presume that he has made that attempt and has failed, and therefore we have put these words upon the Order Paper to meet the point.
It makes it slightly better if an undertaking can be embodied in the statute that the Secretary of State must, if possible, find for a man who is dispossessed, a job as a manager or a tenant of a State owned house. It ameliorates the position of that man to some extent, and the Home Secretary intends by administrative action to give such people the opportunity. As he has said, however, it is only a ministerial undertaking and may be evaded by a successor, and we are seeking here to put the intention in words. I suggest to the House that these words cover the point and are perfectly reasonable because we use the words of the Secretary of State, and the effect of putting these in words what the present Secretary of State intends to do will be made mandatory on a successor.
Mr. Fairhurst: While I have every sympathy with the idea that a dis-
1672
possessed man should be found a job, what would the hon. Gentleman say if it was found that a man who had been dispossessed or had lost his job was a person totally unfitted to take on the responsibility for a modern public house?
Mr. Grimston: Exactly the same point arises out of the undertaking which the Home Secretary has given. I presume that in that case it would not be practicable to put him in. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that in such a case it would not be proposed to do anything for the individual. The Amendment suggests that the Home Secretary shall do it for everybody where practicable, and that is exactly what the Home Secretary has said he will do. We are only seeking to put the undertaking into the Bill.
This point often arises in this Parliament: a Minister gives an undertaking, which is accepted from that Minister by the House, but the House often says quite rightly, "We want to see that undertaking, which would not be given unless it could be carried out, put into the Act." That is what we are seeking to do here. I very much hope that I shall carry the Home Secretary and the House with me in the introduction of the Amendment, and that in view of what he has said, and as the words of the Amendment follow so closely his remarks in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.
Perhaps I may refresh the memories of hon. Members about the origin of the discussions upstairs on this matter. In view of the new Clause which the Home Secretary has introduced, there is really not a great deal between the two sides of the House, but the Amendment is definitive and, therefore, useful. The whole matter arose through the Government's lack of foresight and planning. What we had to do upstairs was not to repeal or review some ancient statute. What we had to do—we had a long discussion about it at the time—was to go back on certain provisions of the New Towns Act, 1946, which was only three years of age. It must be unusual for any Parliament so soon to have to retrace its steps owing to the introduction of an

1673
entirely new Measure which could not have been contemplated when the New Towns Act was passing through the House, otherwise these matters, presumably, would have been dealt with or planned for at that time.
The words of the Amendment will tidy up the whole situation. They will enable future Home Secretaries to know exactly what was the intention of Parliament at the time the Act was passed, and, what is far more important, will enable the intentions of Parliament to be written into the Act. I see, sitting opposite to me, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who more than once has emphasised to the House that certain matters have to be interpreted by the courts. If the courts are to function without dubiety, as the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree, it is the task of Parliament to make its intentions as plain as possible. For these reasons I hope that the Home Secretary and the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Bing: Before the House proceeds with this Amendment we ought to get a little more clearly from the party opposite what are their views about security of tenure for publicans generally. What they are saying now is that there ought to be security of tenure in regard to State houses. I think there is a good deal to be said for this; there is a good deal to be said for the new Clause, and also perhaps for the Amendment; but are the party opposite prepared to see these same conditions imposed upon private enterprise? Perhaps we can have some indication about this from one of the hon. Gentlemen who are putting forward the Amendment?
Mr. Grimston: That is an entirely different point. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; I shall develop that. A tenant of a tied house or any other house has entered into an agreement voluntarily. In this case the State is by law saying to a man, "Out you go !" The position is entirely different. That man has not put himself into that position voluntarily, as the man with a tied house has done. He is being picked up by the State and thrown out of his job. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. Where this compulsion is exerted by the State, the State, should provide compensation.
Mr. Bing: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Now let me give him a case that is exactly parallel—that of the widow, somebody who enters into a property. How is she treated? What are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to do about this kind of case? Let me read a letter from one such widow. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House have had the same pitiful sort of letter. It might be all right if the widow was connected with a new town, but if she is not, she cannot look for much sympathy from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In her letter this widow describes how, after her husband had been there for 29 years, she had been asked to stay on—she never signed an agreement—to keep the business going, and later a new tenant was found. What happened? The bailiff and manager of the brewery arrived, and she says this:
"I was turned out into the street without a home, a living or a husband to support me. Thanks to my former gardener I have a room in his cottage for myself and my dog."
Mr. Speaker: What in the world has this to do with the Bill? It seems to me to be miles and miles away.
Mr. Bing: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to make the point that there has been a failure to mention the person who could be turned out but who, after all, should have the same right of protection, whether the public house is State-owned or privately-owned.
Mr. Speaker: We must confine ourselves to State ownership. Private ownership does not come into the Bill.
Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order. If the Opposition bring forward an entirely new principle which is now to be applied only with reference to new houses in new towns, is it not in Order to argue that a comparison can be made with the fact that they have accepted all these years the right to dispossess a tenant of a public house without making the least attempt to provide him with any sort of compensation? Would it not be correct to argue that as a reason for pressing for more information from the other side as to why they have now become enthusiastic about this principle for public houses in new towns?
Mr. Speaker: The Government are responsible for this Bill, and not the other

1675
side. We must keep to the Bill. We cannot go back and discuss what happened 30 years ago.
Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) appears to be unable to distinguish between those misfortunes which are the common lot of everyone in life and those far worse misfortunes which are created by the present Government. What has happened here is a very real problem. The Government have taken upon themselves a position where they are going to dispossess a working man of both his residence and his business. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt in the new Clause with the question of residence. In the Amendment we are concerned with what is to be done to safeguard him in his business. The Amendment is directed solely to this end.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) pointed out that even as recently as 1946 when dealing with the New Towns Act, the Government had failed to foresee this problem. That it is a very real problem is made even clearer when it is realised that this position was not even foreseen by the Lord President of the Council on the Second Reading of this very Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said then that this problem did not exist. He committed himself during the Second Reading when, referring to this matter, he said that there was no such problem and that it did not exist. Let me read his actual words:
"My right hon. Friend"—
that is, the Home Secretary—
"and the Secretary of State for Scotland are really in a great difficulty about this. They were in the difficulty that the public houses do not exist in these new towns, because the new towns do not exist. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1136.]
Of course, that was a perfectly untrue statement of the position. These public houses do exist in the new towns because they exist in areas which will be designated as new towns under the New Towns Act. Therefore, these public houses did exist, although the Lord President of the Council led the House to believe that they did not exist at all.
We come to a very real problem when we find that the Government are legis-
1676
lating in such a way that they attempt to bring in a Bill to deal with a problem which they do not even know exists, and it becomes highly necessary for us to try to find some solution to get them out of the difficulty into which they have got themselves. That is what we are trying to do by the Amendment. The Home Secretary has agreed, I think, that he accepts its principle. He said that he is likely to be short of people to employ in the State Management houses and that he is agreeable to the general idea of taking on those who become dispossessed by the operation of the Bill.
I should be grateful, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will explain his objection to incorporating that principle into the Bill. We have had a great deal too much legislation in this Parliament by the method of Ministers saying, "Do not bother to put it in the Bill; I shall see that it is carried out." We on this side of the House are not fully satisfied that it is a sufficient safeguard for the future and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment so that the principle can be incorporated in the Bill and his successors will be bound by his declaration.
4.0 p.m.
Dr. Segal: The mover and seconder of this Amendment have submitted that the words are perfectly reasonable. Some of us had already come to regard the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) as the champion of the soft drinks industry. If he persists in his assertion that the words of this Amendment are perfectly reasonable, I can only assume that soft drinks have, possibly, gone to his head. In all fairness, I submit that the Home Secretary is entitled to secure certain safeguards in the matter of some of the tenants who, according to the wording of the Amendment might occupy the
"premises under conditions not less favourable than those under which he was tenant thereof immediately before."
It is quite conceivable that many of the tenants may have been life-long opponents of the whole principle of the State holding of licensed premises. Assuming that they were installed as tenants in the new towns, it is more than likely that they would draw unfavourable comparisons between the conditions under which they

1677
were now working and those under which they were working for private employers. They might even draw unfavourable comparisons between the quality of the beer sold and the furnishings and equipment of the new licensed premises and those of the old. In all reasonableness the Home Secretary is entitled to certain reservations so as not to be compelled to re-appoint all the tenants.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I think the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) has cast a wholly unfair aspersion on the present licensees. If the hon. Member had had experience of the doings of licensing justices he would know that the personal calibre and quality of a publichouse licensee has to be of the highest, because only a man of the highest personality and integrity can get a licence. Indeed, His Majesty's judges have often expressed themselves to the effect that if a man is a licensee of a publichouse he is, ex hypothesi, a man of very high personal character. It would be unfair to suggest that such a man would be deliberately disloyal to his new employer. There is not the slightest scintilla of evidence to support that view. If the hon. Member is to adopt that principle, its application throughout the whole widespread gamut of nationalised industry would result in removing manpower in hundreds of thousands throughout the industry.
Dr. Segal Dr. Segal rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way but let me come to a semi-colon. As the hon. Member has seen by the test taken by the National Union of Railwaymen, it would take 45 per cent. off the railways.
Dr. Segal: In all fairness, may I say I made no such assertion. I said that in the event of such a matter arising surely the Home Secretary was entitled to provide himself with certain safeguards which ought to be inserted in the Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The suggestion of the hon. Member was perfectly clear, that the Home Secretary could not rely on the loyal service of these men if he took them over. That was the suggestion if not, there was no point in the argument of the hon. Member. It should be clear to the hon. Member, if he has any experience of these gentlemen, that
1678
they are not the class of persons who would be disloyal to their employers. If he had done my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) the courtesy of studying the Amendment, he would have seen that there is provision for the exceptional case in the word "practicable." All that the Amendment asks for is that some protection for these men should be put in statutory form. I thought it was a principle accepted on both sides of the House that when Parliament, deliberately by Act of Parliament destroyed someone's source of livelihood, some attempt—adequate or inadequate in some cases—should be made to provide some form of compensation.
All this Amendment seeks to do is to provide some protection. I think it arguable whether more protection should be given but, at any rate, some protection should be given to those whose livelihood this House is engaged in destroying. I am not casting any reflection on the Home Secretary by saying that his undertaking is not so strong as an Act of Parliament and I do not see why he should not go a stage further and embody the undertaking in an Act of Parliament. There is no doubt that there is genuine anxiety on the part of licensees in the new town areas and in areas which may be designated as new towns. If they could see in the Act by which their employment was removed some provision inserted for their protection, that would do a great deal to diminish their apprehension and ease their minds as to the future. I am sure the Home Secretary is not the man deliberately to leave this worthy section of the community in unnecessary anxiety as to their future. If he is to look after them, why should he not do so in the Act of Parliament?
Mr. Michael Astor: I am sure the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) would agree that he was saying that the new licensee will be more liable and apt to criticise and compare unfavourably the new system with the old system, and that the Home Secretary should be able to retain certain rights. That is a very back-handed support to give to this Measure. Surely it is an admission that not only is this a bad Bill, but that it is going to be very unpopular as well and that the beer is going to be worse than formerly and the atmosphere in the pub will compare unfavourably with that which existed previously. I

1679
suggest that the hon. Member cannot have it both ways and cannot use the argument to support the Home Secretary in respect of this Clause and at the same time support the Bill, because one cancels the other.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) referred to the possibility of a lack of loyalty on the part of the new tenant. There may be other attractions, such as working for the Government, less work and longer holidays—
Mr. Bossom: Or the Guillotine.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Or the Guillotine—and it may be attractive to him in his advancing years. I foresee one difficulty. If a licensed house is taken over, it may be extended or rebuilt, and a man who is getting on in years may be unsuitable to continue in the job. Probably he would be too old to learn the art of catering. I suggest that in such cases an undertaking should be given that he would be found a smaller house. If the Home Secretary is here at the time—and I do not think he will be—he will carry out his undertaking, but perhaps others would not do so. Laws can be amended and changed and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring something into the Bill to put a definite responsibility on whatever Government is in power at the time, to see that these men are taken care of.
Mr. Ede: I made a very genuine effort between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill to find a form of words I could put into the Bill which would put into statutory form the assurances which I gave in Committee. One of the difficulties with regard to the form of words of the Amendment is that under it, if it was desired to close a house, it would not be possible to do so because it would be practicable to continue the existing house although that might be quite inimicable to the scheme as a whole. I do not take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Dr. Segal). I hope that if there are any defects in the State management system those employed in the system will feel they are perfectly at liberty to point out the defects through the appropriate channels and to get them remedied.
1680
In fact I did indicate in the Committee stage that I hope there will be representatives of these people on the advisory committees who will have the opportunity of putting forward any defects that they find. When I went round the Carlisle houses I had conversations with some of the managers, and they indicated to me certain ways in which slight improvements could be made to bring these houses even higher above the ordinary public house than they already are. I hope that that spirit of ambition will not be less in any of the State management districts, but there is the difficulty that if these words are put in it would in some cases hamper the appropriate development.
With regard to conditions of service, those are now governed by the regulations made under the Catering Wages Act. Those regulations will be scrupulously observed by the State management scheme in the future, as they have been in the past since they came into operation. I say quite frankly that I would have liked to have put something definitely into the Bill, but I hope that my repetition here today of the pledge which I gave in Committee will be an indication of the way in which these houses will be administered when it comes to dealing with the existing tenants and managers.
I realise what I said in my reply in the discussion we had on the Clause, but we shall have so many additional houses for which to find tenants that I do not anticipate that there will be any real difficulty in this matter. Certainly we shall endeavour to carry out what the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) suggested. If a man is incapable, or we do not consider him capable, of dealing with an enlarged house we shall find him a place in one of the smaller houses. In fact, the opposite and more understandable method already works, whereby a man starts in a small house and as he reveals a capacity and a vacancy occurs he is given the opportunity of a larger house. It may well be that in the kind of case the hon. and gallant Gentleman envisaged it might be advisable to transpose two men. A man in the house to be enlarged might take over a small house managed by a man we regard as capable of taking over the larger house. I should have liked to find a form of words to

1681
meet his point, but while I regret the difficulty which as I have pointed out, exists in this form of words, it has not been possible to find an alternative.
4.15 p.m.
Major Sir David Maxwell Pyle: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, and it does not need any reiteration from me, that it is not his personal intentions that we on this side of the House doubt for a moment with regard to this matter. But as he said, and my hon. Friends have pointed out, this is a matter which goes beyond his personal command over the situation. It is a matter which has worried hon. Members in all ouarters of the House. Therefore, I feel that today, we ought to apply, as we all tried to do in the Committee, an objective test as to whether it is right or wrong that some statutory safeguard should be put in for these people who are dispossessed.
I should be very glad on a suitable occasion to take up the arguments which have been thrown out by hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to my own unworthiness and that of my colleagues, and about different circumstances which occur in other cases. But I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the last to try to burke this position, that here is a problem which must be judged on its merits, and that is what we must seek to do today. The Home Secretary has pointed out that he has met us to some extent, and of course we have admitted with great frankness that he has met us on the question of accommodation. But he has not met us in the Bill on the question of the business that these people affected should carry on. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I hoped that I had made the matter clear when I said that so far as it is practicable it would be my desire to see that persons who became dispossessed in this way were in fact made the tenants or managers of houses in the new towns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd March, 1949; c. 413.]
When the right hon. Gentleman said that, we on this side gave him credit for meaning it, and that what he said was his intention. Therefore, when we drafted the Amendment we put down:
"But the Secretary of State shall as far as practicable secure that any resident tenant of licensed premises in a new town, which are acquired by the Secretary of State under section five of this Act, shall have the opportunity
1682
to remain the tenant of the said premises ender conditions not less favourable than those under which he was tenant thereof immediately before the premises were so acquired."
Surely that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was intending to convey by the undertaking that he gave on Committee stage and repeated today. If there is any change as to the wording, the right hon. Gentleman is a very old hand and knows perfectly well that we should be only too willing to entrust any change of that kind, that is, a change of wording if not of substance, to him and his advisers to put right in the appropriate way. But that is not what is put against us. What is said is that it is not desired to put this in the Bill, and that I cannot under stand. Either it is right to give this undertaking, or it is not. If it is right to give the undertaking, then it ought to be in a permanent form and people ought to know that their representatives in Parliament have done their utmost to achieve the security which we desire.
I think I am interpreting the feelings of everyone on these benches and the feeling lurking in the backs of the minds of many hon. Members in all parts of the House when I say that we ought to see that people who are dispossessed by this Bill have their interests put permanently on record, and for that reason I should advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.
Mr. Proctor: I think that the whole House is unanimous in a desire to do what it has been indicated that the Home Secretary undertook to do during the Committee stage, and that is to protect the interests of the present landlords, the present tenants and managers of the houses which will be acquired under the State scheme. Personally, I hoped that he would have found a way. The form of words of necessity must be found by the lawyers. I would not profess to say that I could discover a form of words, but I would point out that neither has the Opposition discovered words which are suitable. If I have to choose between the Amendment and the pledge which the Home Secretary has given, even taking the risk that his successors may be of a different party, I prefer to stand by the pledge of the Home Secretary in the hope that it will be carried out.
I have a great admiration for the legal brilliance of the right hon. and learned

1683
Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), but I would point out that the proposal by the Opposition only covers one section of those for whom I wish to get the pledge carried out. I refer to the tenants. A man who owns his own public house and who is at present the landlord, a man whom I wish to protect under the pledge given by the Home Secretary, has no protection under this form of words. Neither has the manager who is a manager on behalf of a brewery company. He has no protection whatever under the Amendment proposed by the Opposition.
That leads me to suppose that there must be considerable difficulty in finding suitable words. I hope, however, that the Home Secretary will persist in his efforts. It is clear that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment. If we did we should exclude two sections which I feel are safeguarded by the pledge of the Home Secretary. We should accept my right hon. Friend's pledge if the only choice we have is between that and the Amendment suggested by the Opposition which is totally inadequate.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to say on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself that we would accept the addition of the words, "or manager." If the Home Secretary said that he would insert those words when the Bill goes to another place, that would meet our objection entirely.
Mr. Proctor: I have expressed the opinion and the hope that the Home Secretary will find it possible to give further consideration to this matter. This is a liability which cannot continue for long. It can only be a liability in respect of the people who are there now, and they must be small in number. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to reconsider the matter. If hon. Gentlemen opposite divide on this question, I cannot follow them into the Lobby, because I have more faith in the pledge of the Home Secretary than I have in their drafting.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was sorry to hear the closing phrases of the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). I could not help thinking that he was looking rather suspiciously at the empty place at the end of the Front Bench, and
1684
that it was not so much the wording of the Amendment which deterred him as the fear of what might happen when the Patronage Secretary returned and had a word with him later. The argument he used, that as our Amendment was not perfect therefore it was unnecessary to support anything in the Lobby, is not the sort of argument which carries any weight at all in this House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has made it clear that we are trying to persuade His Majesty's Government to put into black and white what they have already said.
We are prepared to accept any reasonable drafting which will bring about that desired result. We are told that our words are not perfect. We were waiting the placing on the Order Paper of an Amendment by the Home Secretary, hoping that he would have succeeded in finding, as he undertook to attempt to find, some way of interpreting his good intentions. When we did not find an Amendment on the Order Paper we had to try to find words which we had hoped he would find. If we have not been successful, I suggest that his duty and the desire of the House lie in trying to amend our Amendment or to find some other words of his own.
One aspect has not so far been mentioned. There is a definite fear in the minds of tenants of licensed houses in districts which are to become State management districts, or which it is feared will become State management districts, that the type of manager who will be introduced will be quite different from the present tenants of licensed houses. That fear has some substance, because when one examines the Carlisle scheme, one finds—it may be by chance or by design; I will not say which—that there is a type of man managing those houses who bears little or no relation to the typical public house tenant. If that is to be so, and if the policy of the Home Secretary about who should or should not be employed in this position is to be dictated by past experience in Carlisle, then there is even more substance than appears at first sight in the fears of the present tenants.
If that fear is to be removed, it is even more essential that some provision should be drafted into the Bill. I should like the Home Secretary to say, even at this

1685
late stage, "I do not give up hope; I believe that some form of words can be found between now and a later stage; I will keep on trying and I undertake to try to find a form of words which can be put into the Bill." That would not harm him and it would not harm the Bill, but it would be some sort of assurance and comfort to these people who are sorely distressed.
Mr. Nally: I really cannot accept the touching innocence with which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and his hon. Friends place themselves at the disposal of the Home Secretary in this matter and announce their willingness to accept a new form of words to interpret the touching and sweet desire to protect licensees which they express in this Amendment. There are two, if not three, most distinguished lawyers associated with this Amendment. I have no doubt that since the end of the Committee stage they have given a good deal of attention to this matter. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that the Opposition Amendment had to be drafted hurriedly—just dashed off, as it were—because they had not found on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.
I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite have given a great deal of thought to this matter. So have we, because many of us on this side of the House, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), were anxious to see whether a form of words could be devised to put into practical effect the undertaking which the Secretary of State had given. Clearly, we were not completely competent to do that ourselves and we sought what seemed to us to be competent legal advice. We were not able—and I assume this has been the case with the Secretary of State—to get from our advisers a comprehensive form of words to give full effect to the spirit of the undertaking which had been given. Indeed, that is not remarkable. In many of these matters, what will be really effective is not the form of words embodied in the Statute but rather the spirit and general feeling in which it is administered. Upon that question I want to say a word or two with regard to what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
1686
4.30 p.m.
It really is most unfair that, from Conservative platforms outside and in this House, there should be these continued slimy innuendoes on the character and standing of the people who serve the State management scheme at Carlisle. I can speak with some knowledge of publicans in general. The truth is that there is no common type of publican. If one takes all the public houses within a mile of this House, one would find every type of person, from the young lady of 27 to the elderly man of 65 or even 70, running a public house.
There is no stereotyped publican, and when the hon. Gentleman opposite said that State management would produce one, he was quite beside the point, I agree, however, that there are fears held by licensees in certain areas which have been scheduled or are likely to be scheduled for new towns that they will be dispossessed. I freely admit that, but I am also bound to say, that not only are these fears quite needless, but many of them would not have existed had it not been for the vicious and unscrupulous campaign run by the Opposition and their friends the brewers as to what is meant by this Licensing Bill.
The proposal of hon. Members opposite refers to "conditions not less favourable," and here I would reinforce the point made by the Home Secretary. I should be most dismayed, most angry and indignant if licensees in the new towns and under the State management scheme were not to get in many instances far better working conditions than they have at the moment. Let me illustrate that by one simple example. We may have a publican under a State management scheme whose political views are not in accord with those of the ruling party of the time. I should be most annoyed if those responsible for the State management scheme forced him to show all over his public house, posters and slogans that were completely repugnant to him and to most of his customers.
Under present conditions, a licensee who is employed by the brewers has no alternative under the terms of his agreement except to display any poster or placard, no matter how offensive it might be to his own views or those of his customers. I have here a copy of "The Brewers' Almanac" for 1949, which includes a model tenancy agreement. It

1687
is rather better than some tenancy agreements, but, even in this case, one finds that it is laid down that it shall be the duty of the landlord to exhibit on the premises such advertisements and notices as may be supplied by the brewers for the purpose.
I have been to many of the areas which are or may be the sites for new towns. In these places, as in my own division, I am happy to say that there are many publicans—indeed, in my own constituency, which is an industrial constituency, possibly the majority of them—who came into the business from industrial jobs and who are Socialists. Their position in the recent campaign which has been conducted by hon. Members opposite and the brewers was very difficult, and in the public houses in my division which had Socialist landlords—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman appears to be dealing at length with matters which are not relevant to the new Clause, which, of course, deals with licensed premises in the new towns.
Mr. Nally: The only point I was making—forgetting my own constituency for a moment—was that in the areas scheduled for the new towns, there happen to be Socialist publicans, and I hope that the Government do not intend to carry out the present brewers' system under which publicans will be forced to do what they have to do now, in the way of exhibiting notices and posters which are completely repugnant to their consciences and to those of their patrons. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Football pools."] We shall, I hope, have an opportunity of dealing with them later on.
In conclusion, I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and shared by many hon. Members opposite, that there is a genuine desire in the House that we should try, not only to provide the spirit of the undertaking given but, if possible, to place in the Bill a form of words which will carry out that desire to give protection. I know that the Home Secretary has been consulting his advisers consistently on this matter, and that it appears that there is no form of words that will fully meet the case. If that is so, we shall have to rely on a proper interpretation of the spirit of the Bill and the pledge given. I hope the
1688
Home Secretary will continue his researches in the matter, though personally I am prepared to accept his personal undertaking and am certainly not prepared to join hon. Members Opposite in going into the Lobby in support of this rather vague and meaningless Amendment.
Mr. Ede: If I may, with the leave of the House, intervene again, I think I can shorten this discussion. I have listened with great care to what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and Bilston (Mr. Nally), and I am very desirous of meeting the general view of the House on this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles pointed out one or two matters on which this Amendment is clearly defective, if it is really intended to cover everyone, because the person employed, no matter in what capacity, has as much right to be considered as the person whom the supporters of the Amendment have in mind.
I will therefore accept the wording of the Amendment as an earnest of the fact that I intend to proceed further with the matter, but the point raised by the hon. Member for Eccles will have to be met and I must also safeguard myself against the position that may arise where I desire to close a house for the benefit of the district generally. It is true that I must not be prevented from doing that, but I must be under some duty at the same time to find a place for the man who is thus dispossessed. I am quite sure that no one would desire that, merely because a man is already there, a necessary improvement should be prevented which would involve pulling down of premises and transferring of the licence somewhere else or saying that it is a redundant licence and not needed in the area. If the House would be prepared to recognise that that filling-out of the Amendment will be necessary, I shall not object to it being added to the Bill.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the House will allow me, I would like to say that we will accept the situation which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced—that he accepts the Amendment as an earnest of the matter with which we are trying to deal, but that he makes such alterations as seem good to him on the lines which he has suggested at another stage of the Bill. The immediate result of that will

1689
be that the Amendment will be accepted on this understanding.
Mr. C. Williams: I wanted to intervene earlier to say how much I appreciated the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in repudiating what was said by the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal). I think it should be said from this side of the House that we appreciate that, because we do not think the Home Secretary would ever take the view expressed by the hon. Member. There is nothing to add, except to say that this is a very great advance on the part of the Government in declaring that they will accept the Amendment, in that it is the desire of the House of Commons and is not like having to accept the word of a Minister. I am very grateful that we have brought a new spirit into this matter and that the House has registered its opinion.
Amendment to the proposed new Clause agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES FOR CERTAIN CLUBS.)
(1) If, on an application in that behalf as respects the premises of a registered club, being premises situated in a part of the metropolis for the time being specified by an order under subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act, the metropolitan police magistrate for the police court division in which the premises are situated is satisfied—

(a) that a certificate granted under the Schedule (Certification of club premises for music and dancing) to this Act is in force as respects the premises; and

(b) that the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted, and bola fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing for the members of the club music and dancing and substantial refreshment to which the supply of intoxicating liquor is ancillary,

the magistrate shall grant a certificate under this section (hereinafter referred to as a special hours certificate") as respects the premises or the part thereof as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection, and the provisions of section (Later permitted hours where special hours certificate in force) of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(2) Section eighty-one of the Act of 1910 (which empowers constables to enter licensed premises for the purpose of preventing or detecting offences) shall apply to any premises as respects the whole or any part whereof
1690
a special hours certificate is in force under this section as it applies to licensed premises. —(Mr. Ede.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the next three Clauses in the name of the right hon. Gentleman might conveniently be discussed together if that is the wish of the House.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
If it would be for the convenience of the House, I think we might discuss with this Clause the four following new Clauses standing in my name, and, incidentally, it may be necessary to refer to the Amendments to Clause 20 which I propose to move later.
As the Bill was originally drafted, it took very drastic steps to bring to an end the provision of some forms of entertainment which have sprung up, very skilfully penetrating all loopholes in the law, and would have made no provision for any alternative. The Government have very carefully considered the situation that that would create, and during the passage of the Bill through the Committee stage, we inserted a new Clause, which is now Clause 20 of the Bill, which enables certain hotels and restaurants making special provision, and having special facilities, to enjoy the opportunity of providing during special hours meals and forms of entertainment. These arrangements are limited to the Metropolis, and, in fact, will, when they are brought into operation, be roughly limited to the City of Westminster.
The question has arisen as to whether in the desire to meet what is the wish mainly of those connected with the tourist industry in the country, these arrangements will be sufficient to provide all the opportunities that are sought. After carefully considering the matter with those who claim to speak with great knowledge on the matter, and after consulting the Metropolitan Police and the London County Council, we have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that there should be certain other facilities, and these new clauses on the Order Paper enable those further facilities to be granted.
It is quite clear that an attempt to suppress entirely the facilities for public

1691
music and dancing, and the supply of meals in association with the consumption of intoxicating liquors in the Metropolis, will merely drive the provision underground. That, I think, has been proved quite well by successive happenings in this City during this century, and if there is one thing that is totally undesirable it is that these facilities shall only be enjoyed if they can be provided by underground means. It is certain that, when they are so provided, there is so much profit to be made out of them that there will be a number of people who will be willing to risk their money, and, as was proved in the case of Mrs. Meyrick, their personal liberty, in carrying out these arrangements for the amusement of other people.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Harrison: My right hon. Friend mentioned the tourist trade in connection with these places. Are we to assume from his comments that the primary purpose of such places is to provide amusement for tourists, or will my right hon. Friend accept the fact that the tourists are very much in the minority of the usual habitués of these particular places?
Mr. Ede: I wish my hon. Friend would allow me to develop my argument in my own way, because I am afraid that I shall have to ask for some indulgence and the patience of the House in dealing with this matter. If at the end of what I have to say, I have not covered all the points which my hon. Friend wishes to make, he can then intervene if, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he can catch your eye.
I am not concerned whether the tourist is in the majority or the minority; what I am certain about is that there is a certain basic trade all the year round, but that at certain periods of the year there is a very considerable demand from tourists in this matter, and it is very desirable that that latter section should be catered for. Neither do I regard the others, if provision can be made for them within the well defined Statute, as not being worthy of consideration by this House. If this traffic goes underground, it involves the most serious strain on the standard of conduct of the police in the Metropolis. As head of the Metropolitan Police, I am very proud of the standard
1692
of conduct that the vast majority of the members of that Force attain and preserve in times like the present, when quite big bribes can be offered for connivance at all sorts of underground activities, apart from the one with which we are engaged this afternoon.
When there is the position which we find now, where the only way in which breaches of the law can be discovered is by asking a young constable to get into evening clothes giving him a substantial sum of money for a man in his position, and asking him to go into one of these places in circumstances which may, on occasion, make it appear that he is an agent provocateur, and in any case place him in a position of very great delicacy, I know from what I have been told by many who have left the Metropolitan Police for high positions in the provincial forces, that that has a very disintegrating and demoralising effect on a good many of the men concerned. I desire that that should not take place.
With regard to hotels and restaurants, we laid it down that they should carry on these facilities in premises that were guaranteed as safe by compliance with the requirements of the London County Council. The majority of the places where - these entertainments are now carried on do not comply, and, I am advised, cannot comply with the requirements of the London County Council.
It will be within the recollection of the House that one club named Churchills was stopped under the existing regulations, and the entertainment afforded to the police by that establishment had, apparently, been so lavish that when they got outside they forgot the address, and the order that was made referred to the place by the wrong address. When action was taken in the stipendiary magistrate's court the police action failed on the mound that the order, in fact, applied to No. 116 instead of No. 160. When the club was re-opened I saw in the "Evening Standard"—a paper which is not, I gather from its comments, unfriendly to these places—a statement that the "postage stamp dancing floor" was covered. When one considers the exits from these places, one finds that they 'do not comply with the reasonable standards which have been set by the London County Council for other places of public dancing. It would clearly, I

1693
think, be wrong to have places that the law recognised for this purpose which were not suitable and were not inspected and passed with regard to the question of public safety.
Another thing is that these places are not open to inspection by the police. The requirements that we have made with regard to the hotels and restaurants are that they shall comply with the law by having an hotel or restaurant keeper's licence which puts them in a special category, that the premises used for dancing shall be suitably approved by the London County Council, and that the police shall be able to inspect them. We cannot apply the first of these requirements to clubs, but we can apply the second and third to any club which wishes to avail itself of these facilities. These Clauses make that provision, and I suggest that they are provisions that this House has the right to insist on if these facilities are to be given. The hotels and restaurants are dealt with by the licensing justices, but in London clubs are registered with the stipendiary magistrate, and therefore the granting of the special hours certificate will also be made by the stipendiary magistrate and any complaints with regard to the clubs will be heard before the stipendiary magistrate.
I hope that the House will feel that this is a genuine effort to deal with an admittedly difficult and aggravated problem. I know that I speak under some disability, because I do not frequent these places myself. I have never been to one. I am quite prepared to believe that it is a loss of what might be a very valuable experience to a person in my position. I have never concealed that from myself, but the fact that I do not want a facility is no reason why I should deny it to another person if he can use it reasonably and not make a public nuisance of himself. That is the spirit in which I have approached this matter.
The question of the exact hours chosen, I think, also needs some slight explanation. I am told that the genuine need for these places—and I have sought for this information from more than one source—lasts up till about 2.30 in the morning, and that is the hour that we have chosen. But, of course, it will be possible for any person holding either one of the special licences for a hotel or restaurant or a
1694
special certificate for a club, to apply to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police for an extension for a special occasion, but that will have to be a special occasion as defined by the law. Tuesday is not a special occasion, but if Tuesday happens to be the annual gathering of, let us say some regimental association or some body like that, it may then be a special occasion. It cannot he regarded as a special occasion to take one day of the week and single it out.
I notice that there is an Amendment to one of these Clauses I think I had better deal with it—
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amendment relating to a limited number of days, we do not intend to move it. The right hon. Gentleman might tell us his views on it, but I wanted to let him know that I shall not move it.
Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much. What we have been advised, by the hoteliers, the restaurateurs and the police, is that if we had these odd days in the week, it would make the practical administration of the law exceedingly difficult, and it is only on administrative grounds that we omit them. So far as a part of the year is concerned, we are willing to recognise that there may be some places which have a seasonal trade that we ought to recognise, but when it comes to, say, every other night during the week, it would be very difficult administratively. We are also advised that it might also be very inconvenient to patrons if they turned up on a Wednesday and then found that the nights on which the facilities were available were Tuesday and Thursday instead of the night when they had chosen to come.
The whole of this question depends upon the ability of the police and the London County Council to discharge their functions with regard to it. I had an interview with the London County Council representatives yesterday, and, although there are one or two points which may need clearing up, they are quite willing to undertake the supervision of these places so far as safety is concerned. As to the police, I think the powers we have taken with regard to the revocation of the orders will enable their functions to be discharged in a way that

1695
should enable those who are conducting these places to know very clearly what their obligations are and what will be the penalties if they commit a breach of any of the requirements. The curious thing about this business is that from no other part of the country have we had any request that these facilities should be extended to them.
Mr. J. Hudson: My right hon. Friend will have.
Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend is speaking in the guise of a prophet. I have never seen him on Epsom Downs when I have been there, but I have noticed that it is very little use arguing with prophets. One can only leave time to contradict them, and in my experience time generally does.
I was not much impressed with this fact when we first dealt with the matter, although it made some impression on me. Although this matter has been canvassed very extensively in the Press, and each successive move in this matter has been greeted with very big headlines in the papers, there has been no demand from any Other part of the country for the extension of these facilities to them.
5.0 p.m.
It appears to be a problem that is a Metropolitan one entirely, arising from the fact that London is, after all, the capital of the country. I commend these new Clauses to the House, and I shall welcome any constructive criticism that can be made of them. I commend them to the House because I am certain that any alternative which says that at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m., or even at midnight the life of this city is to close down would lead to the law getting into the state of serious disrepute into which it got a few years ago. That being so, it is far better to frame practical and reasonable laws which can be enforced, with the feeling that there are laws entitled to respect and that evasion of them is something to be regarded as culpable. It is in that spirit that these new Clauses have been framed, and I hope that Members will feel we are justified in putting them before the House.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the realistic way in which he has tackled this extremely difficult problem. I believe that he has tried in these new
1696
Clauses to meet all the varying interests, particularly of the tourist industry, as far as he possibly can. There are one or two observations I should like to make on the new Clause dealing with clubs. I hasten to disclose the fact that I am a director of an hotel in London, and that I am also Vice-Chairman of the Council of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association. I am not at this particular moment, however, necessarily putting forward the views of either of these two bodies.
I feel that perhaps unwittingly there is an advantage given to the clubs under this new Clause. I wish to draw a distinction between the Club and bottle party, on the one hand, and the bona fide restaurant, on the other. At the present time a club is entitled to charge an entrance fee, whereas a restaurant is not so permitted under the Meals in Establishments Order of the Ministry of Food. The club can charge, for example, £1 1s. entrance fee and 5s. for a meal, whereas a restaurant can charge no entrance fee and is permitted to charge only its 5s. plus a house charge if it has been given one. That is the first considerable discrimination between clubs and bona fide restaurants. This discrimination enables the club to evade the regulations of the Minister of Food under the Meals in Establishments Order.
The second point I wish to make, which is also a very real point, is that clubs do not have to pay the same monopoly payments which hotels and restaurants have had to pay since 1904. Large payments, for which the clubs are not liable, have to be made by way of excise duties and monopoly payments by hotels and restaurants. My third point is that if a club is properly administered it will be rather difficult to enable tourists to visit it, because under the law as it stands a man has to be a member of a club for 48 hours before he is entitled to pay for a drink. It seems to me that when the average stay of the tourist in this country is so short, the value of the club as such to the tourist trade will not be quite as great as may be anticipated. I mention these three points, not because I want to do the new Clause down—I do not want to see it destroyed—but because I feel that I should draw the distinction between the restaurant, on the one hand, and the club, on the other; because I feel that an unfair advantage is being given to the

1697
club as against what has always been regarded as the bona fide restaurant.
I have a suggestion to make, which is only a suggestion, because I know it cannot be embodied in the Bill. It is that the solution of these difficulties, or at least of the first point I mentioned, could be found in doing away with price restrictions as far as the Meals in Establishments Order is concerned in this specified area where the tourist trade is to be encouraged. I say that with a certain amount of diffidence, because I know that it would perhaps mean greedy eyes would be cast upon the American visitors and tourists in this area. I can see that Mr. Deputy-Speaker is getting a bit restive with me on that point, but I know that the Home Secretary is aware of it, and perhaps he will consider it before the Bill goes to another place.
There are only two other small points I should like to question, and the first is the meaning of the word "ancillary." Subsection (1, b) says:
"That the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing for the members of the club music and dancing and substantial refreshment to which the supply of intoxicating liquor is ancillary."
I think that there should be some definition of the word "ancillary," as there is already a definition of this word where it is applied in Clause 20 to bona fide restaurants. I should also like to ask what the position is in regard to those establishments, hotels and restaurants, which perhaps find themselves on a particular evening with no customers after, say, 1 a.m. It obviously is not worth while keeping a band playing to an empty room, and it seems rather senseless to keep the staff and band available because a chance customer may perhaps come in later. I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in the event of such a thing happening the establishment will be permitted to close and the staff go home. It may be covered by the wording of the Bill but to me, at any rate, the words are not clear.
Mr. J. Hudson: I very much regret that the Home Secretary has found it necessary to beat a further retreat from the other retreats he has made since first introducing this matter to the House. When the Bill was published we were
1698
extremely glad to see that the evil of the London night-club was recognised by the Government. There was general satisfaction among those sections of the community which are especially interested in this matter—temperance organisations, the churches, and such like—at the fact that this long-standing evil was at last to be tackled. While there was some doubt and division of opinion about the proposals contained in other sections of the Bill, the Government's proposals on this matter were received wholeheartedly.
Since then, however, my right hon. Friend has been in retreat, and I do not know even now that he has reached the end of his retreats. Neither does my right hon. Friend. He has suggested that my prophecies are not so good, but he has only set himself up as a competitor with me. Although he does not seem to to be aware of it I can tell him that some of my hon. Friends have already been writing in the Press, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) did last weekend, to suggest that if it is a good thing to provide for drinks up to 2.30 a.m. in the centre of London, other places should receive consideration. My hon. Friend suggested that Brighton and Edinburgh might be added to the list. I have no doubt that when the clubs get to work, and use all the pressure of which they are capable, we shall be faced with further demands to amend the present proposals.
What I cannot understand about the Home Secretary's attitude is this: he has used effectively, certainly at the beginning of his campaign of retreat, the cases of Mrs. Meyrick and ex-Police Sergeant Goddard. We were terrified by the Home Secretary's description of the young constable dressing in evening dress, and being made so drunk by his efforts to please my right hon. Friend, that he did not even know the number of the club he was visiting. The case of that constable has been offered to us over and over again as a reason why we should approve my right hon. Friend's proposals. Who are file people who will benefit by this latest proposal? In Standing Committee I called them the playboys of London, and an hon. Friend of mine assured me that they had all died out a generation ago. Call them what

1699
you like, they are gilded spivs, buccaneers of the black market, whose bulging purses enable them to spend every night at an extravagant rate, a rate for which there is no justification whatever today. These people ought to have been well satisfied with the order that enabled them to drink until 11 p.m., 11.30 or, on special occasions, until midnight. To make the arrangement proposed now, at a time when everyone is being asked to work harder in the interests of the production drive, will redound very badly against the Labour movement when we are seeking to justify it in the communities we represent.
5.15 p.m.
Any time would have been better than the present to introduce a step of this kind, and I strongly protest, on behalf of the few people who take a view similar to mine, at the weakness which the Government have shown in this matter. To suggest that the proposed step is necessary to meet the needs of Continental tourists—"Brummagem" tourists and others were mentioned, but I am not concerned with them—is sheer nonsense. It is absurd to say that Continental visitors cannot be attracted to this country unless they can visit questionable places which can be kept lively until 2 a.m. with the help of alcoholic liquor. Do hon. Members imagine that the average tourist is particularly keen about staying up till 2.30, either in a club or elsewhere? Before he gets -here, he rises much earlier than the he rest of us, and then goes around to see what we have to show him. Long before 2 a.m. he is glad to go to bed, so that he can be fresh for more touring the following day. We should have given a better impression of our country if we had insisted on sticking to the old rules, and letting the law remain as it was.
To what extent shall we be freed of the problem of the young constable in evening dress? At 2 a.m., what then? Somebody has to see that drink is not being sold after that hour. We have heard, even from the Minister, of places being kept open until 4 a.m. Are we to assume that such a practice will now cease? Indeed, there may be an increase in the number of people who will find their pleasures at night by drinking at a late hour. Neither from the point of view of Continental trade, nor from the
1700
point of view of the good of our own country, was it justifiable to embark upon this extension.
I derive one small piece of consolation from the Home Secretary's Clause. I see that he is carrying out the proposal which I made 20 years ago in this House in a special Bill which was never debated, but which was offered to the Royal Commission as evidence of what ought to be done with regard to clubs. The Royal Commission unanimously accepted that suggestion but no one has ever dared to apply it since then until now. I see that the Home Secretary proposes to make these club premises which receive the special privilege of a licence to sell drink until 2 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. subject to police inspection, and inspection not merely by an inspector, which was the proposal in the Bill which I introduced many years ago, but by a constable. According to the terms of the Clause, a constable may, as is now provided in connection with licensed premises, visit the club without prior notice to see that the law is being obeyed. I congratulate the Home Secretary upon that point, the only point upon which I can congratulate him, but let us at least give praise where one can.
Again assuming the rôle of a prophet, I assure him that in a little while he will hear again that if it is right to insist on this necessity for the maintenance of law in clubs in regard to the supply of drink by means of the visit of the constable to see that the law is being kept, there will be many other institutions in which the Home Secretary will be asked to apply the method which he is now willing to apply in this matter. But even with this provision of the visit of the young constable, how is the Home Secretary to deal with the question of the young constable going surreptitiously into a place and drinking illicitly in order to find out whether the club is or is not obeying the law? The Home Secretary is still in the same position of having to remind us again about Sergeant Goddard and Mrs. Meyrick; they will continue to be the ghosts raised before us in these discussions in order to frighten us in regard to the matter.
I submit to the Home Secretary that he would have been far better engaged in making a new effort to encourage the police, by giving them, in the first place, the power of visiting, rather than giving

1701
it now so late in the proceedings, and had he kept the late hour at midnight or some time about then. Had he done that, he would have found it easier to keep inviolable the character of our police and to prevent the sort of corruption about which he complained, and quite rightly complained, and which has taken place in the past.
I have found it very difficult to persuade myself to support other aspects of this Bill. I cannot speak upon those other aspects at the moment, but I have, stage by stage, listened to the Home Secretary. I have admitted that in many matters he has made improvements. In this matter he has only gone from bad to worse, and in my judgment the situation is now so bad in regard to the encouragement given to the less satisfactory element in our community by providing them with facilities for drinking at unheard of hours, that the Home Secretary's action is beyond justification. Accordingly, I shall certainly vote against this Clause when it is put to the House.
Mr. Astor: The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) has made a speech which I think the whole House has enjoyed, while probably no one has agreed with what he said. I shall refer indirectly to some of his views in the course of my speech. He referred to evil night clubs. I think that he conjures up in his own mind the picture of a sort of press gang for the white slave market, Which may be the popular misconception of something which is fundamentally merely rather a boring place. I suggest that no one in their right mind would find themselves in a night club at 2 a.m. unless they had something to drink. I shall deal with those matters in a moment or two.
I should first like to say how very wise I thought the Home Secretary's attitude was both to the matter of these indulgences as they apply to other people; and in ensuring that these sorts of practices are not driven underground. In considering this whole problem we have to take into account both the home market and the tourist market. So far as the home market is concerned—I say this because I do not feel that some of the Home Secretary's supporters take such a reasonable and broadminded view of this matter as he does—it is not for Parliament to dictate what people shall do
1702
at any time of night, other than to ensure that their actions do not offend public opinion or the ordinary rights and safeguards of individuals. To say that to go to a bottle party at night is wrong makes about as much sense as to say that it is right to go to the cinema at night but wrong to listen to the B.B.C. I may say that both are rather dull but by all means let anybody do either, should they so wish.
In referring to the hon. Member for West Ealing, I would point out that at a bottle party, which is the part of the Measure which we are discussing, only three things happen, so far as I know. First, it is a place where one can eat; second one can drink; and third one may talk or dance. None of these things in themselves is evil, and one should be able to make merry and enjoy oneself without immediately incurring the censure of a minority of the public, who will always take great offence at anyone getting anything "on the side" as it were, which they themselves are not immediately experiencing. There is nothing very vicious in doing those things, and the Home Secretary having now accepted the fact that this form of entertainment is all right, should still revise certain restrictions pertaining to these entertainments. Let us take the case of someone who comes down from the North once or twice a year wishing to go to a night club. He has to become a member, which costs several pounds, I imagine; and having got in, he probably has to pay an exorbitant price for the drink he has. Having accepted the fact that these amenities should be allowed, the Home Secretary should then consider reviewing the law which makes it necessary to go in a roundabout and complicated fashion in order to indulge in these relatively and indeed absolutely harmless practices.
The Home Secretary should also consider whether the law should not be reviewed in respect of hours as such. I shall not go too far in that matter, as it is rather wider than the Clause which we are discussing, but I would refer the Home Secretary to two countries where certain experiments have been carried out. In the days of extreme, indeed absolute Governmental control in the United States, the days of prohibition, there were not only speakeasies galore but a great deal of drunkenness, not only in New

1703
York and the big cities, but in all the provincial country districts as well. That was a very serious result indeed.
5.30 p.m.
I think it is true to say that in America there is less drunkenness than there has ever been in the history of that country. There is no law at all which affects the ordinary public or the tourist, provided the man selling the drink has a licence to sell it. I think that is a sensible and wise attitude to adopt. In France, where there is comparatively little or virtually no drunkenness at all, it is equally true that there are no laws or regulations for the conduct of these matters. Although we suffer from a climate which may be worse than that of our neighbours and allies, I cannot believe that this country is more prone to sudden outbursts of drunkenness than are the French or the Americans. In fact, I would say it is rather less prone. I suggest that the whole matter should be reviewed in a new light.
Perhaps I may say one last word about the tourist market because that is a very real thing. People visit England partly, as the hon. Member for West Ealing says, to see the various sights of London as they are generally known and accepted, but they also do so to get into a new atmosphere in a country where habits are different, where things are different and where people may look a little different. Once there they seek to enjoy themselves, and in my experience people abroad always give themselves a rather greater measure of irresponsibility and rather greater licence than when they are at home. In the case of the ordinary, sober God-fearing business man, who has rather a boring life, we should probably find that when he goes to Paris or comes to London he takes his wife or daughter out to a night club and goes around to places, whereas when he is in his own town he would not consider doing any such thing. It is a holiday and an outing.
The whole question of encouraging foreign exchange should be duly considered in this Bill and I think it is a real argument for making the realisation of these enjoyments—and to some people they are real enjoyments—simpler and less complicated. We must get rid of any slight idea of subterfuge. I believe it is unfortunate if there is a
1704
feeling that the whole thing is a little bit underground. You do not have to have a password but you have to be a member of these clubs. I believe it is unfortunate if the thing is not perfectly ordinary, simple and straightforward, which surely it should be. I have no personal axe to grind in this matter at all, but I think the approach I have suggested would be wiser and I commend it to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Walkden: When I was a Member of the Committee on this Bill I was rather surprised that the Home Secretary produced what is now Clause 20. I voted for Clause 20 in Committee because I believe it is a correct line of approach to a particular and difficult problem and my reluctance to continue that support of the Home Secretary on this question of the clubs is for entirely different reasons from those expressed by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I must say I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) who was very near to the point of doubt. He should understand that there is an entirely different angle from that of serving drinks.
London is different from the rest of Britain and however we look at it—and I have lived in London for 21 years—we shall never alter this old on d o n of ours. I have been in one or two of these West End night clubs and I know of nothing that is more miserable, bigger time-wasting and more boring; nevertheless it is a good thing now and again to try to understand what the night clubs are for, why they exist, and to try to understand some of the problems, other than those mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ealing. Let us be perfectly frank. If we were to scrap this Clause altogether today, this business of the bottle parties would continue, the police would have their problems, people would come to London—whether they be tourists from France, from America, from Birmingham or from Ilkley Moor—and people would still use these places.
I was discussing this matter with a couple of those fellows who have to handle this difficult problem of the West End bottle parties and night clubs. I do not mean the policeman who have been referred to by the Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for West

1705
Ealing, those policemen who had to dress up in evening clothes. These are men of a different calibre altogether. It was emphasised to me that whatever the Home Secretary or the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police tried to do, or whatever Parliament tried to do, unless we gave to the police the right of access to these clubs we should never achieve our objective. On that point I rejoice with the hon. Member for West Ealing that the Home Secretary has adopted that suggestion, and I hope the House will agree with it.
Let us carry it a stage further. It is not just a matter of the police having access; it does not stop there. Let me tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne that if I were in his position, speaking for the Hotels' and Restaurants' Association as he does—and rightly so—I should bring in the question of what is fair competition in this business when we are introducing clubs into the Bill. I should do so for this reason: I do not think the clubs that are being referred to now have ever been to see the Home Secretary, except perhaps the representatives of the original bottle parties and also two very respectable clubs—or it may have been only one; I do not know. I believe one club came to see the Home Secretary but it would not be fair to mention the name. The type of club which I have in mind and which perhaps the Home Secretary has in mind will subscribe to all the laws. They will honour every obligation and they will observe the same conditions as those of the hotels and restaurants of the West End. They will themselves subscribe to everything, including that of first importance—the Catering Wages Act. I ask the Home Secretary, what guarantee can he give to the House that clubs which will be licensed by the London County Council with a music and dancing licence, will subscribe to the Catering Wages Act and pay fair wages? Who will say that they will do that?
I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to look in particular at that point. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggests that there should be a lifting of the price control on meals, and I ask the Home Secretary to tell him whether his inspectors or his officials have informed him that today some of those night clubs which will be applying to the London County Council and which
1706
will qualify for recognition by the London County Council as places for music or dancing, have little recognition of the price control order for meals. They disregard it completely. They do not bother about it. Half-a-guinea for chips, eggs and a piece of toast is a common price at the ordinary bottle parties or night clubs.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Where?
Mr. Walkden: I shall not give the names. I have them in my pocket. The information was given to me today. I will give the hon. Member a card to go there tonight and he can try for himself. These are facts the hon. Member ought to know. The collection of cards I have here has been given to me by friends of mine. I have no desire whatever to act as the agent for any particular club. I want to face the facts at issue. Many of the clubs, so far as the L.C.C. is concerned, will qualify for music and dancing. The people whom one calls "hostesses," and who take part in the cabarets, receive no wages whatever.
Mr. Astor: They do.
Mr. Walkden: These are facts. I am prepared to substantiate them. They are not new to people who know the West End at all. They must he known to my hon. Friends in the Opposition and to some Members opposite below the Gangway.
Mr. Harrison: Why below the Gangway?
Mr. Walkden: One of the bottle parties, as it is now, will become a club, and it will qualify under the L.C.C. Of 27 on the staff 22 do not get any wages whatsoever.
Mr. Astor: Remarkable.
Mr. Walkden: It is true. I can brine the evidence to the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary, and I have told them of it before. The hostesses are, of course, very well trained gold-diggers who extract money from the pockets of the people whom the hon. Member for West Ealing denounced.
I want to ask hon. Members of the Opposition and hon. Members of the Labour Party to face the facts, for heaven's sake. This London of ours has got to be tackled. We have a practical

1707
Home Secretary tackling it. I am expressing doubt whether this is the right way to do it. I have looked into the subject very carefully with the help of friends of mine in the hotel and restaurant business; I have looked into it with trade union officials; and I have also looked into it from the angle of the customers. I am perfectly frank about it. I am very frightened by this club question as involved in the suggestion the Home Secretary has made. I believe some respectable clubs will honour the Catering Wages Act, and the price of meals regulations—honour every code there is. There are two or three clubs that will be glad to join in the efforts of the Home Secretary to clean up the West End of London.
However, the real fears which we ought to be entertaining are in respect of those places I have described that will qualify under the provisions of the new Clause. Let us make no mistake about it. They will endeavour to skate round the Bill if the new Clause is inserted and becomes law. There is no doubt that they will find ways and means of doing so. We ought to be frank and honest, and recognise that we are running risks in introducing the Clause which the Home Secretary has put before us.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) with some interest. It was not clear from what he said how far he was speaking from hearsay and how far he had taken the opportunity of personally acquainting himself with the conditions he described in various clubs. To the best of my knowledge, even night club proprietors find it difficult to get waiters and kitchen hands and cooks without paying wages. I should think that if I myself were wishing to work for nothing, the last place I should go to would be a night club. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman has information by which he can substantiate in this House or elsewhere what he has said. He referred to hostesses. To my knowledge they are present in only one establishment, and, therefore, we are dealing with a minority. I have never known a night club which charged more than the statutory price for meals.
1708
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any exact information, but I should very much doubt whether—
Mr. Harrison: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he is speaking from hearsay or actual experience of these matters?
Mr. Shepherd: I am speaking from experience. There is an argument, with which I shall deal a little later, and which says that part of the admission charge may be construed as a charge for meals. That is a separate argument. No doubt, it has some validity, but it is certainly not true to say, so far as I know, that these rules are ignored. In any case, it is up to the authorities, when these places become proper and legal, to take the necessary steps to see that these regulations are complied with.
Mr. Walkden: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake there. The licence of the L.C.C. for music and dancing, unless conditioned specifically, would have no effect whatever in regard to the controlled price of meals.
Mr. Shepherd: It is perfectly proper, if these regulations are laid down, for an enforcement officer of the Ministry of Food to go into one of these places, and if necessary make a complaint. They are not in a privileged position as compared with any other type of establishment.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who is, perhaps, the most cheerful prohibitionist this country has ever known. When he referred to the great evils of the night clubs, I felt that, if only he went to one, he would, perhaps, alter his opinion of them. I have felt inclined in the last few months to invite him to come to one, and the only thing which has prevented me from doing so has been the thought that, perhaps, having got him in I might not be able to get him out. I should feel a great sense of personal responsibility if, by introducing the hon. Member for West Ealing to a night club, I put him on a track from which he could not escape, and if his constituents could no longer find him here but had to communicate with him via the "Bag o' Nails." So I have refrained from extending an invitation I should have liked to give the hon. Gentleman to visit these clubs.

1709
I want to turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) who spoke up, very properly, for the hotels and restaurants. I feel that the grievance which is exercising the minds of those people is not so rare as they would have us believe. They have been facing the competition of semi-legal and privileged bottle parties for the last 15 years. Under the Clause, perhaps, they will be in a better position relatively than ever before, so far as night clubs are concerned. Of course, it is true to say that clubs have an advantage, and that they do not pay monopoly values, but the fact is that the clubs are here and that they are an essential part of our life.
Mr. Harrison: Essential?
Mr. Shepherd: To all except a few prohibitionists.
Mr. J. Hudson: More than a few.
Mr. Shepherd: I hope hon. Gentlemen who hold the view that drink is a great evil do not think that they represent the considered opinion of the country.
Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people who eat and drink out who still look upon clubs as a very great evil?
Mr. Shepherd: Frankly, I refuse to believe that a club in the West End of London or a working man's club in Wigan is a great evil. I do not think that the ordinary person in this country would support his view. The hon. Member for Eastbourne says that the clubs have an unfair advantage. If it is true that the restaurants are going to do very much better than the clubs because the clubs charge high admission fees and this, that and the other, surely the restaurants have nothing to complain about. If they are going to give what the public needs at a lower price, they are going to empty the night clubs very quickly, and the restaurants will have all the business.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised one point which, I think, is of substance, and that is that tourists will not be able readily to get into these clubs because of the provision of the Act which requires them to have an application in for 48 hours. I wonder whether the Home Secretary would go into the question of whether a person not normally resident
1710
in this country, could, on production of his passport, gain admission almost immediately. I should like to raise a second point with the Home Secretary as to whether the bar service is interrupted by the provisions of the Act. I have down an Amendment, which I understand is out of Order, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me his ideas on that issue.
I want to thank the Home Secretary for the manner in which he has dealt with this very difficult problem. He has shown great courtesy in negotiations, and a very broad mind in dealing with the problem. For my own part, I have no personal interest in night clubs whatsoever, but I felt, when this Bill was introduced, that evils were going to flow from the attempts to suppress them. I felt absolutely certain that London would be rendered less attractive to visitors and that we should only encourage a more undesirable type of establishment than we had before. It would in fact he a return to the days of Mrs. Meyrick. I am pleased to see that the Home Secretary has apparently received advice from the police that the action which he contemplated taking would be undesirable in the interests of the Metropolis. I do not condemn people who go to night clubs. It is usual to condemn indulgences to which we are not ourselves prone and to find excuses for those to which we are prone. I wish that certain hon. Members of this House, who take so unaccommodating a view, would bear this fact in mind.
I have never sought to maintain bottle parties as they now exist. They are an obvious evasion of the intention of the law, and it is perfectly proper that they should be put on a sound basis and subjected to all the restrictions, regulations and supervision which attain to similar establishments. To eliminate them is not possible. They exist all over the world and fulfil a demand. The fact that they are only to be found in a metropolis is by no means an unusual thing. People come to London from the provinces and expect to find entertainment of a slightly different kind from that to which they are accustomed in their home towns. It is proper that the Metropolis should provide that entertainment as, indeed, the metropolis in almost every other country in the world does.

1711
The new Clause is sound because it puts the clubs on a very proper basis and limits the area in which they can operate. Secondly, it ensures public safety, which is something on which this House has every right to be satisfied. It will ensure that the type of man who runs a club satisfies the magistrate. It will not be possible, as it is now, for a person of the most undesirable character to establish a club. He will have to prove to the magistrate that he is a suitable person, and, therefore, we shall have a better type of person running this business. Lastly, it will ensure adequate police supervision which, I think, is essential in this type of business. I believe that this move is a proper one because it will encourage people to come to this country. The hon. Member for West Ealing purported to know what French visitors to this country really want to do. I am sure that he has never spoken to a French visitor, if he puts forward that view, unless he is a fellow-prohibitionist.
Mr. J. Hudson: I have spoken to a large number of French visitors and to large numbers of people in France, who. I hope, will come here.
Mr. Shepherd: I must say that Frenchmen would appear to me to be the last people to complain about night club life. I think that Paris has provided more lavishly for that kind of entertainment than any other capital in the world. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for West Ealing is seriously telling the House that the majority of visitors to these shores from foreign countries would take objection to our providing late night entertainment for them. I am sure that would not be the view expressed by the average person coming to this country.
I do not support the Home Secretary's Clauses merely on that ground. I think that they represent the views of the persons from Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds who come to London and enjoy this form of entertainment. Why should we restrict people from pursuing a particular form of entertainment? Why should not they enjoy for a few hours this limited form of entertainment if they wish to do so. There is no justification for interfering with the liberty of the subject in this connection.
Therefore, I stand quite unashamedly for the freedom of the British person to
1712
enjoy this form of entertainment if he wishes to do so. I think that the House would be well-advised to accept these new Clauses which will do away with an unsatisfactory state of affairs and put in its place something much sounder and more satisfactory. We in this House owe a debt to the Home Secretary for the manner in which he has considered this problem and the work which he has put into it to meet a difficult situation. I believe that the solution that he has found is the proper one, and I am quite convinced that this Clause will improve the life of the metropolis to a very considerable extent.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall be very brief, but I think that the little I have to say about these new Clauses will probably cause hon. Members to believe that I am also narrow-minded. I am not, if I may say so with every respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) a prohibitionist. I have taken a great deal of interest in working men's clubs, and I am satisfied that they have been a considerable social advantage to working men in different parts of the country.
I do not like these new Clauses. I have never seen my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so unhappy in presenting any matter to this House as he has been this afternoon over these new Clauses. I know that he has tried to put up a bold front, but I am absolutely confident that his heart is not in this business. May I say that, like myself, he has been in the working-class movement for a very long time, and this movement grew and drew its inspiration partly from the hatred of the masses for the frivolity enjoyed at the expense of those who had an honest day's work to do. That is one of the reasons my sympathies have gone entirely on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing. This is alien to our movement; it is socially and ethically alien to all its ideals.
6.0 p.m.
The Home Secretary, I have a shrewd suspicion, has an idea that what I am saying is correct. Let us consider his arguments in trying to justify these Clauses. He has never been so weak in putting up a case as he has been this' afternoon, and I have a very strong hope that no other occasion will arise when the Home Secretary will be asked to face

1713
such a situation as he has to face this afternoon.
What have been the Home Secretary's reasons for legalising the night clubs and bottle parties in the metropolis? He says that if we attempt to suppress these night clubs we shall drive them underground. What an argument. First of all, it is an admission that the Metropolitan Police, who are so anxious to put the rest of the police in the country on the right road, cannot tackle this problem. They have admitted their failure and come to the Home Secretary to get him to extricate them from their difficulties; they have admitted a failure to do their work. It is no argument to say that if we try to suppress the clubs we shall drive them underground.
What else did he tell us? He said that there is a genuine need for these places up to two or half-past two in the morning. Who feels this need today? I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing is exaggerating in his description of the class of person who frequents these places. Cannot a man or woman live in our society today without there being these cesspools for the gilded "spiv" described by my hon. Friend? Such a suggestion will revolt every decent working man and working woman in the country—and it is not a teetotaller or prohibitionist who says so. This is a gross piece of disloyalty to the great traditions of the working-class movement in this country.
What other reasons have been given today by the Home Secretary? He says that the need arises in London because it is a capital city. That is no argument. Babylon was a capital city once upon a time, and probably the licensing of its night clubs contributed to its very unhappy ending. The Home Secretary has utterly failed to make out any case for these new Clauses. I am satisfied that there is no decent, human, or social necessity for this business. There is no need for it on the part of any working man or working woman who is pulling his or her weight in our life today.
I go further. If the only way in which we can attract tourists to this country is by this means—a means which to the mind and conscience of the movement which gave birth to this Government is a filthy idea, utterly anti-social and utterly indecent—then I am one who will not
1714
invite tourists to come here. I know of many who will agree with me when I say that we would much prefer to enjoy what we have in this country than have tourists who have to be entertained at such places until two and half-past two in the morning.
I know that I and my hon. Friends are inexperienced in these things; I know that our points of view are ridiculously amateurish; still, our inexperience and our amateurishness have contributed something towards building up the finest and cleanest movement for the people that this country has ever seen. Is there any one of my hon. Friends, whom the Home Secretary expects to support him on these new Clauses, who would be pleased to hear that a daughter of his frequented these places till two and half-past two in the morning? Would they like their daughters to visit these licensed houses which have grown up out of the vilest practices, which the Metropolitan Police admit are being carried on? I certainly would not, and I am the proud father of three very charming, comparatively young daughters. I should be hurt and humiliated if I knew that any one of them would frequent places of this kind. They would do something more than let their parents down; they would let down the movement in which they were cradled.
My last word is to tell the Home Secretary that this violates our traditions and our idealism. The Government are letting down this great movement of ours, a movement which came into being to battle with these evil forces, by sponsoring a piece of legislation that is a disgrace to every decent man and woman in our country.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If anything could have persuaded me to support these new Clauses, it would have been the speech to which we have just listened, because it seemed to me to be so riddled with narrow sectarian bias, so impregnated with the idea that what the hon. Member thought right for himself, must be so universally right as to entitle him to force it by law upon others. That is an attitude which I am certain this House as a whole does not accept. Perhaps I might, in response to one of the more exuberant outbursts of the hon. Gentleman, in which he used the word "cesspools," remind

1715
him that those are a very necessary part of any civilisation—
Mr. S. O. Davies: Can I accept that as the opinion of the Opposition?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —as becomes only too painfully apparent to the olfactory nerves when one visits a locality where they do not exist.
I should, however, like to put one or two doubts about these Clauses, I hope in more restrained language—it could certainly not be less restrained—than that used by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies). I am not quite clear what it is that has changed the Home Secretary's mind since the Committee stage. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect that at that stage the Home Secretary introduced a new Clause which is now Clause 20. I have turned up what the right hon. Gentleman said in his very lucid speech introducing that new Clause, and at the end of that speech he did indicate that he thought he had found a satisfactory solution for this very real problem. I have a fairly open mind on the question, but the right hon. Gentleman did not today, as I understood it, bring forward any new reasons which had arisen since the Committee stage to cause him to go this one step further.
I speak as one who believes that it is right and inevitable to provide in a great capital city for those, to my mind, foolish individuals who like to sit up late at night. The only question is whether that is best done and best regulated in the way now suggested in the Bill under Clause 20, or whether it will be better done if this further addition is made. It seems to me that, other things being equal it is better to make this provision for late-night entertainment within the ambit of the normal licensing laws, with the usual procedure of application to licensing justices, the payment of monopoly value, and so on. I am not quite convinced by what the Home Secretary said that there is any need to make this further provision outside the ambit of the ordinary licensing laws.
I do not propose to go into the general question of whether clubs are good or bad. I was rather entertained during one or two of the speeches by hon. Members opposite with their general condemnation
1716
of all clubs as dens of unmitigated vice. My mind strayed towards the Athenaeum in that connection, and it seemed to me that in that context certain of the condemnations to which the House listened were not wholly relevant or wholly applicable. One recalls too the number of admirable working men's clubs—there is a most admirable one in my own constituency—which are conducted with the utmost sobriety and decorum. So far as clubs are concerned, my own inclination is in favour of them.
These night clubs in London are not clubs in that sense at all. They are technically and legally clubs for the purpose, but they are not really clubs. The club element is introduced to provide expensive entertainment. I am not convinced that the real need for providing entertainment late at night in London is not adequately met in the ordinary licensed premises already provided for in the Bill. If the tourist argument is used—and it is to me a strong argument—the tourist will find it all the easier to make his way into ordinary licensed premises rather than into properly conducted clubs. There are certain formalities to be followed in entering clubs which do not render them immediately available to foreigners in this country. Therefore, the tourist argument is strongly in favour of entertainment in ordinary licensed premises.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary one question on the first of the new Clauses. It is provided there that substantial refreshment shall be a necessary part of the qualifications for remaining open. In a way it is rather curious to see the Home Secretary laying it down that it is a criminal offence not to provide substantial refreshment in these places during these hours, when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is doing his best to make it a criminal offence to provide substantial refreshment anywhere else.
There is a point of seriousness here. If the clubs are conducted as clubs they can exact membership fees or entrance fees which go towards their general finances. Therefore, although they may punctiliously observe the Meals in Establishments Order so far as prices are concerned, yet in fact they have available financial resources behind them which are not available in the case of restaurants, where it would be a criminal offence if

1717
they imposed a similar charge. I fear that the Home Secretary, under this Clause, is giving a strong economic incentive to the provision of substantial meals in these places. He is giving aid to people who will be in a favourably placed position to buy materials for those meals at high prices, because they will have available, in addition to the authorised charge for the meals, the funds perfectly legitimately obtained by them in the shape of membership fees.
It seems to me that there is some danger that the Home Secretary will be fortifying the black market in foodstuffs of a luxury character and doing the opposite of what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is doing by giving establishments an inducement to pay high prices in illicit transactions for the purpose, for example, of obtaining poultry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, those transactions at present occur with distressing frequency. I fear that one of the indirect and no doubt inadvertent results of this Clause is that there will be additional financial pressure behind the black market in foodstuffs, and that will be a most unfortunate consequence. There is a grave risk of it because it is made an actual condition of the operation of these establishments that substantial meals shall be served.
I hope I have put this point of view as reasonably and moderately as I can. If the Home Secretary can convince me that this problem is best dealt with by this additional method of providing entertainment, I shall find myself able to support the new Clause. As the position now stands, and having listened carefully to what has been said, I should find it quite impossible to support this new Clause, though for different reasons from those expressed by hon. Members opposite. I think it is only fair to put to the Home Secretary this point of view so that when he replies he may be able to deal with the position.
6.15 p.m.
Dr. Segal: I confess to being in the somewhat unusual position of sharing a little of the uneasiness of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He said that he wondered why this new Clause was not included in the original Clause 20, which was in the draft of the Bill. Clause 20, as originally placed in the Bill, proved a rather difficult Clause for a good many
1718
Members on this side of the House to swallow. Some of us had an uneasy feeling that perhaps it was the intention of the Home Secretary to introduce these concessions by easy stages in order to avoid a full discussion of this Clause as it affects night clubs when the Bill was on its way through Committee, and that they were reserved deliberately for the Report stage. It would go a long way towards relieving the anxiety of some of my hon. Friends if we could feel that it was purely an after-thought and that the night clubs had been left out of the original Bill through an oversight or by accident.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary to deal fairly fully with one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). In this Clause there occurs the word "ancillary," which also occurs in the original Clause 20. When the Bill was on its way through Committee, the Home Secretary stated that the word "ancillary" was to he interpreted as meaning cases where the income was derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor to the amount of less than one-third of the total income of any of these establishments. Is it intended that the same interpretation shall be applied to the word "ancillary" in this Clause? Could my right hon. Friend also explain more fully what is the intention of the words "substantial refreshment"? Is it intended that these night clubs should be able to provide their clients with full three-course meals or just casual refreshment, which might be taken to comply with the wording of this Clause? If the Home Secretary would explain these two words "ancillary" and "substantial" in a little more detail, it might go a long way towards relieving some of the uneasiness that a few Members on this side of the House feel about this particular Clause.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I and my hon. Friends feel that this Clause is not a matter on which any party line should be laid down, because I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that many people take a view with regard to this matter which, though I do not share it I believe they are fully entitled to hold. On the other hand, I did not think it was right or proper that I should let the matter go with a silent vote without expressing my own views with regard to

1719
the Clauses. I should like very shortly to tell the House what has influenced me in their favour.
In the first place, there is a problem, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House. One hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that any tourist who wanted to go for late entertainment to a place where he could dance, and where drink was provided at the same time, was not the sort of tourist we wanted in this country. With great respect to his sincerity, I would totally disagree with that statement. It is an attitude of mind which we ought to show is not shared by the majority of us. By all means let us keep our respect for those who have those stern views, but we must make it clear that to most of us those views are over-severe and are not in train with the general feeling of today.
I want to go further. Apart from tourists, another section of the population who go to places of this sort are the young. I mean people from the ages of 18 to 25. They always have done that and they always will do it. Do not, again, let it go out as being the general opinion of the House of Commons that when young people go to dance at a place, and dance till half-past two, that because liquor is obtainable there that place ipso facto becomes a haunt of vice. It is simply quite untrue with regard to the youth of this country. I am sure that the views of the majority of the House do not agree with that attitude.
I come to the information which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House when he said that the problem had been considered by the Metropolitan Police, and that they had formed the view that if we drove these practices underground we simply encouraged the bad elements which we know exist in that sort of milieu as in every milieu. I was most impressed by the view, which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be indicating as the view of the Metropolitan Police and also his view, which he had formed on the information which the Metropolitan Police had given. They have suggested that this course is necessary because the provisions of the Bill will secure the safeguard of inspection. I entirely agree with that. The other point which impressed me was the point
1720
on which the right hon. Gentleman has insisted, the safety provision. In the past it has been possible to imagine a very nasty situation indeed if there had been a fire or something of that kind in one of these places. I am impressed by the fact that that provision has been brought into being and now takes its place among the conditions.
The House has had a considerable Debate upon this point, but I felt that it would not be right to let the matter go to a Division without putting forward, as I hope I always do, quite clearly and frankly what my views on the matter are. I do not ask anyone to be compelled by those views unless the views have convinced them. They are my views, and for those reasons I shall support the Clause.
Mr. Ede: We have had a reasonably long discussion on the Clause. The views of both sides of the House have been put forward with great frankness and vehemence. I do not complain of the vehemence of some of the language that has been used. There was a time, in my earlier years, when I would have regarded the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) as far too mild. I believe that one should profit from one's experience in the conduct of affairs. I have been compelled to take the line I have taken because of the results of that experience. I shall remain a total abstainer, and I do not intend to take dancing lessons merely because I am providing facilities for people to dance and, simultaneously, if a substantial meal is provided, to have intoxicating liquors. I do not feel called upon to go and join them. I would not imagine that all of them would want to spend their nights with me when the House keeps sitting until half past four or five in the morning. We all have our particular ways of spending time.
I do resent, though, the suggestion that there is something alien to the history and tradition of the Labour movement in an endeavour to see that proper facilities for recreation and refreshment are available for all sections of the community. I hope that as a result of this arrangement some of the clubs associated with the Club and Institute Union will be able to provide for their members, and for the sons and daughters of their members, facilities for holding functions connected with that organisation and others in which they are

1721
interested, on the premises which they provide. It is quite wrong to think that this is merely making provision for the creation of cesspools for gilded spivs.
Mr. J. Hudson: Is my right hon. Friend desirous that workingmen's clubs should stay open until 2.30 in the morning?
Mr. Ede: If the working men's club complies with the conditions, it is perfectly open to it to do so.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Outside the area?
Mr. Ede: No, inside the area. I do not think it is true to say that I or anyone else has suggested that this is the only way of attracting tourists to the country. We know that the lack of such facilities would deprive us of the visits of certain tourists whom we are particularly anxious to encourage. The language of exaggeration which says that this is the only way of attracting tourists is really not worthy of the standard of Debate that we have observed this evening.
Mr. S. O. Davies: The suggestion that I expressed those views should be corrected.
Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend himself said that I had said that it was the only way of attracting tourists.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member never said it.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I say that I heard him say it. My hon. Friends for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) and West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) have not done justice to what I said about the Metropolitan Police. My hon Friend the Member for West Ealing in the end congratulated me, the one thing on which he expressed approval being the facilities which I have given to the Metropolitan Police in this Clause. This entirely removes the necessity for submitting them to the temptations they have hitherto had. In future a uniformed constable will have the right of entering any of these premises to see that the law is being complied with and it will not be necessary for him to go in disguised or for a warrant to be obtained from one of the higher officers of the police if it is desired that uniformed police shall enter.
1722
That is a substantial advantage. It can be obtained only by bringing these places above ground and recognising that there is a desire, which I myself do not find blameworthy, by certain people to enjoy dancing in these places in the earliest hours of the morning. I do not regard that as being in any way blameworthy and I have taken steps whereby the law will recognise it; the law will be capable of easy enforcement and will ensure the utmost protection to those people who conduct their premises legitimately.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) asked me certain questions about the competition which might arise on an unfair basis between the club and the hotel or restaurant. I am still in communication with the Hotels and Restaurants Association on that matter. I believe it will be possible to make arrangements whereby that unfair competition can be either eliminated or very strictly limited. I hope to be able to ensure that that happens before the Bill becomes law. The hon. Member asked me what happens when dancing ends on some evenings when the patrons disappear before 2 a.m. or 2.30 a.m.? He will see that it is provided in a subsequent proposed Clause that:
"On any occasion when the provision of music and dancing ceases at a time before two o'clock in the morning, the permitted hours shall cease at that time."
If no one is dancing, the places have to close down. That is a substantial protection against any of these places developing into drinking dens. Anybody who thought he could take advantage of these places in order to go on drinking for a much longer number of hours would thus find his indulgences brought to an end.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my right hon. Friend's argument mean that there cannot be any reasonable breaks between dancing? He seems to be assuming that dancing shall go on continuously.
Mr. Ede: No, quite clearly that is not so. There will be the usual reasonable arrangement for the conduct of public dancing. I imagine we have all attended dances at some time or other where the band plays for a considerable time and no dancing occurs. Where that happens,

1723
judged on a reasonable basis, it would indicate that the time had come for the place to close down for the night.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: I am still not awfully happy on this point. If a restaurant, a hotel or a club which has contracted to stay open until 2.30 a.m. and has applied for a licence to stay open until that time, has to close down at 1 a.m. for lack of customers, will it have its licence taken away?
Mr. Ede: Not if it was on an isolated or infrequent occasion, but, clearly, if it happened continuously over a substantial period that the facilities were not used after the time to which they could be used without the special licence, it would be a good ground for asking that the special licence should be revoked, and I imagine that there would be a desire that the special licence should be surrendered.
Mr. J. Hudson: If a club employs two persons as professional dancers to continue the dancing during the night, does that give it the right to keep open?
Mr. Ede: I should have thought not. [Interruption.] I heard an hon. Member say that it was a good idea. Sometimes I have found more pleasure in watching the professional dancers than some of the other performances. However, I suggest that they are not persons who are attending there for the purpose of public dancing. They may be there as part of the cabaret show. "Public dancing" means the public participating in the dancing.
I have also been asked about the use of the word "ancillary." It is well known in this connection. For the hotels and restaurants we can apply the requirements of the Finance Act which indicate the percentage of the takings which must come from something other than intoxicating liquors, as a condition which will entitle the person desiring to have a licence to obtain one. With regard to the clubs, the Home Office itself will have to endeavour to get some standard not dissimilar which can be applied.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne also raised a question on which there seems to be very substantial misunderstanding in the country and apparently even in the House, the taxation levied on clubs
1724
and hotels and restaurants. The club is subject to a special tax of 3d. in the £ on all the intoxicating liquor which it purchases. That is a tax which does not apply to the liquor purchased for hotels and restaurants. I have had the advantage of seeing the sums paid by some clubs and some of the hotels in this connection. The special tax on some of the clubs reaches a higher figure than the licence duties charged on some of the biggest London hotels which were established before 1904. That deals with taxation, but of course it does not deal with the problem of monopoly value which arose in those houses established after 1904. I do not see how it is possible to find a way of dealing with the problem of monopoly value at the present time.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked whether the provision by hotels and restaurant proprietors would be insufficient to meet what we may regard as the likely legitimate demands. I do not think the hotel and restaurant proprietors would allege that, by themselves, in the restricted area to which this Measure will apply they would be able to make the full provision that is regarded as necessary. If they could, I say frankly, I would have preferred that the hotels and restaurants should have a monopoly, and that there should not be this secondary provision made available through the clubs.
I will conclude by dealing, I hope finally, with the question of whether it is right that these facilities should be available at all, for that has been raised in the speeches of one or two hon. Members. I say to all my fellow total abstainers in the House that it is quite wrong of us to think that we can impose our views on other people in this country otherwise than by arguments and conviction—
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: And example.
Mr. Ede: I did not include that in considering my hon. Friends, for they are such outstanding examples of the clarity of expression that comes from total abstinence.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend please inform us what he is doing now other than forcing his views on others?
Mr. Ede: No, I am not forcing my views on anybody. When these Clauses become law my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) will not be compelled to attend any night club, except that I hope he will be here occasionally in the early hours of the morning to support the Government as vehemently as he has opposed them tonight. We do not force anybody to go, but I should much resent any law which said either that I was to consume intoxicating liquor or that I was to go to a night club against my wish. There are, however, certain reasonable citizens of this country who can drink a certain amount of intoxicating liquor without, as far as I can see, any immediate harm to themselves or making themselves a nuisance to their neighbours.
Now the law deals with those who make themselves a nuisance to neighbours, and these Clauses will make it easier to control and prevent the nuisances that we know sometimes arise when some of the present evasions of the law in the form of night clubs get their customers to leave early in the morning.
Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Ede: No, I have been generous in giving way, and we have a lot of business before us. I suggest that the right attitude for this House to adopt, and particularly the right attitude for this party to adopt, is that if other people do not interfere with us in the legitimate enjoyment of our leisure, we should not interfere unnecessarily with them, and that the only ground for interfering with anybody in the use of his leisure is the fact that he is infringing on the liberties of someone else. There is no infringement with the liberties of anyone in these Clauses.
Mr. J. Hudson: What about the man who wants to drink until 4 o'clock in the morning? My right hon. Friend is stopping him at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Ede: Precisely. The reason why, on advice, I am asking the House to come to the conclusion that going on until 4 o'clock would be detrimental to his health, is that we ought not to impose so severe a burden on the National Health Service as such long hours would entail. Traditionally in this country we have imposed certain limitations with regard to
1726
hours which have varied from one generation to another as the habits and requirements of the population have changed. I suggest that we recognise the existing habits and existing needs appropriately in the Clauses which I have the honour to submit to the House.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I rise not to make a speech but to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not want to interrupt him in his speech because so many other hon. Members were already doing so. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) the Home Secretary referred to the proviso on page 1997 of the Order Paper to which reference has been made already, namely,
"on any occasion when the provision of music and dancing ceases. …"
It is clear from the points put by hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman that there is doubt and misapprehension as to the meaning of that proviso. All hon. Members who put points to the Home Secretary read the proviso as if it said "on any occasion when the provision of music and dancing ceased," whereas of course the proviso says "ceases." It is clear from that, that the proviso does not mean when dancing has ceased but merely when the provision of music and dancing has ceased. The provision of music is clear enough to understand. What the provision of dancing is, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is obviously a matter of doubt. However, that is what the proviso appears to intend to say, but it does not succeed in saying it satisfactorily, so would the Home Secretary agree that it should be looked at again from the point of view of clarifying it in another place?
Mr. Ede Mr. Ede indicated assent.
Mr. Leslie Hale: No doubt my right hon. Friend would be grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) for raising that point if my right hon. Friend had not expressed a contrary opinion 10 minutes ago. I also rise to put two questions. The first is this. Everybody knows that club law at the moment makes it quite easy to form what is known as a bogus club. A bogus club, in the sense in which I am using the term, is a perfectly legitimate thing. You pay 5s., you register with a magistrate's

1727
clerk, you arrange to employ your wife as cook, your brother as librarian, your daughter as something else, and you ensure that the club cannot make a profit except for yourself. That is the method of registering the kind of club which is a proprietary club, and it is from that kind of club that the evil used to come—the clubs that were run by the widowed mother of a large number of peeresses, or other single persons who ran a club purely for profit.
So far as I have read these Clauses, there is no power in them for the authority granting the licence to consider that point. There is no power for a uniformed constable to inspect the books. There is no power to insist that the club which is being given the privileges is a reputable members' club conducted for the members.
Mr. Driberg: Would it get a catering licence if it were disreputable?
Mr. Hale: Most certainly. We had a reference in recent proceedings to precisely that type of organisation.
My second point is this: I agree substantially with the right hon. Gentleman that if we do not do something we shall drive this thing underground, making it worse, with no powers of control. I am prepared to accept the general proposition that there has to be some sort of provision such as this, that it is an admirable thing to have police inspection, but I say sincerely that I am not sure that this has had all the consideration it might have had if it had been incorporated in the Bill at the commencement, and had been deliberated on in Committee. That is rather a pity, because it is an important matter and we must face it.
The case against the sort of night club that was the subject of complaint before the war was that it was the resort, and the organised resort, of women of a certain type. It was not the case that it was a brothel or that prostitution took place upon the premises. It was the case that one could go there and meet either prostitutes or persons who were employed for the purpose of conveying the impression that they might be willing to submit themselves to that kind of thing, even whether they did or did not do so. No uniformed constable inspecting that place could see anything wrong. The way those
1728
clubs were stopped was to get them for a breach of the licensing laws; but now that the licensing laws are being altered they cannot be tackled in that way. Such places will be able to carry on so long as they comply with the very few and rather limited conditions which will now exist. This is important, because really I do not see what the uniformed constable is likely to see wrong when he inspects this kind of premises. That is point number two, and it ought to be made.
And now, point number three. The right hon. Gentleman rather overstated his case when he gave us a description of the Battersea Working Men's Club carrying on until 2.30 in the morning. If the Battersea club, then why not the Oldham club? But let me say this: I do not think we want such facilities in Oldham; I am not suggesting there is any demand by my constituents for night clubs or anything else, but I can conceive no argument that could be put forward for extending this possibility to the whole of the associated working men's clubs of London—except, it may be, that there has been no desire for rejoicing in London since the County Council elections; apart from that, however, I conceive no argument which could say that this provision should apply to some obscure suburb of London, but not to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh or Birmingham if those places want it. That matter wants some consideration.
This is a matter about which the House has a right to be concerned; about which the House has a right to say that it ought to have a little longer for reflection, a longer opportunity for thought and a little more careful study, because this is the sort of subject upon which most of us who are concerned with this problem would want to refer to organisations for information; would want to refer to people of experience; would want to know just how the Clause is going to work and just what sort of thing it will permit before we are called upon to vote for it at all.
It is not always that I can agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), and I can probably agree with him now only because I did not hear what he said but only heard a reference to it after I came into the House. There is certainly a case for saying that if these facilities are to be

1729
given at all, hotels and restaurants are certainly entitled to consideration. I cannot imagine anyone—I am not saying this at all jocularly—who would be more capable of providing facilities of this sort on a very substantial and proper scale than well-known catering firms. They could then be reputably and well conducted, and could still be made attractive. [Laughter.] I do not know why that remark appears to occasion a certain amount of amusement in the Post Office. I should never suggest that such things should be run in the village post office. Have not Lyons' got control of the Trocadero—if I might try to make my point clearer? They might very well be capable of providing the sort of evening entertainment which can be reputably conducted.
Mr. Ede: Clause 20 already enables that to be done.
Mr. Hale: I appreciate what is in Clause 20, but there are a number of limitations which, I am sure, are well in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is perfectly clear under this Clause that the bogus proprietary club could have very many more facilities than the average club. That is why I think this is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give more consideration.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I find myself in support of the general view of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) that it might be wise to have a little further reflection before we part with the Clause, particularly on this matter of the definition of what constitutes "the cessation of music and dancing." Frankly, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman failed to make that clear, and I thought that the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) put his finger on an obvious weakness—an escape Clause, if you like—when he suggested that if some professional dancers hired by the establishment revolved on the floor for the necessary length of time that would constitute the continuance of dancing. I do not think I am doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice if I suggest that what he had in mind was some sort of stooge staff to occupy the floor whilst the remainder of the customers patronised the bar. From what the Home Secretary has said, however, I gather that this
1730
possibility was not in his mind. What he meant was the cessation of dancing by the customers—I cannot think of a better word—
Mr. Ede: Clients.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: —by the clients of the establishment.
Here, again, is a rather obvious loophole. Let me suggest the procedure which would appeal immediately to the Patronage Secretary: that the members at the bar would be told not to "keep a house" but to go and "keep a floor"; that there must be the necessary number of people there revolving; that so long as someone is dancing, everyone else can go on drinking. I feel sure there is room here for a little definition. To carry the matter a little further by the same analogy, the floor would have to be kept occupied. There might, perhaps, be a statutory minimum number of dancers who had to be on the floor; who must occupy the floor until either the fall of the guillotine at 2 o'clock or until the head waiter, who I am sure would have much of the demeanour and appearance of the Patronage Secretary, moved the closure. This, tome, seems to be a loophole as a result of which the whole of the Home Secretary's good intentions might be sidetracked. I though that the hon. Member for West Ealing was making a good point when he spoke about this.
Mr. J. Hudson: I should like to be described properly in this House. There in a place named West Ealing but it has no geographical connection with my constituency. My constituency is Ealing, West.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I must tender my immediate apologies to the hon. Gentleman. Habitues of night clubs will have even greater difficulty in bearing this in mind when they have to approach the hon. Gentleman on any of his visits to these places.
The Home Secretary has made a brave effort to meet a real difficulty, and I share the general view which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby.(Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) expressed to the House; but I feel there is a case for further clarification of what constitutes "the cessation of music and dancing."
Mr. Ede: May I, with leave of the House, say that I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I shall have all the points he has raised most carefully considered. I do not intend that these facilities should be available for bogus clubs. On the other points which he has raised I will see if it is possible in another place to introduce words to safeguard the position.
Let me reply to the point raised on several occasions about the time when music and dancing should cease. If hon. Members look at the Clause now under discussion they will see that lines 8 and 9 read as follows:
"that the whole or any part of the premises is structurally adapted, and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing for the members of the club music and dancing …."
Again, I shall have these words examined to be quite sure that they cover the very legitimate point that the dancing is genuine dancing by the members of the club and not by two or three pairs of stooges put up merely to keep the thing going.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking in Committee upstairs to look into the question of whether it was necessary or right to amend the general provisions so that no place should be forced to stay open if it were losing money. By what he said earlier this afternoon, it would appear that any place would run grave risk of losing its licence, or not obtaining a new licence, if it were not open. In view of the undertaking, I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at this matter again. We do not want to do anything to force an establishment to remain open at a loss.
Mr. Ede: I have looked into the point and I have been reassured on it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(GRANT OF SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES LIMITED TO PART ONLY OF YEAR.)
Where on an application for a special hours certificate the licensing justices or the magistrate are or is satisfied that the premises or part of premises to which the application
1732
relates are used, or intended to be used, as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act, or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, as the case may be, during part only of the year, the justices or magistrate may grant a certificate limited so as to be in force only during that part of the year.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(LATER PERMITTED HOURS WHERE SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATE IN FORCE.)
(1) The following provisions of this section shall apply as respects the permitted hours for any premises or part of premises in respect of which a special hours certificate has been granted.
(2) The holder of the licence or the secretary of the club, as the case may be, may give notice to the superintendent of the police of the district wherein the premises are situated that from such date (not being earlier than fourteen days after the giving of the notice) as may be specified therein the provisions of the next following subsection are to have effect as respects the premises or part of premises to which the special hours certificate relates.
(3) As from the date specified under the last foregoing subsection, but subject to the provisions of this section, while the special hours certificate is in force the following provisions shall have effect as respects the premises or part of premises to which the certificate relates in substitution for the provisions of sections one and three of the Act of 1921 (which provide for the permitted hours on weekdays and for an extension of an hour in certain premises as respects intoxicating liquor sold for consumption at a meal), and, as respects weekdays, in substitution for paragraph (d) of section five of that Act (which authorises the consumption of intoxicating liquor with a meal within half an hour after the end of the permitted hours if the liquor was supplied during the permitted hours), that is to say:—

(a) the permitted hours shall be the hours from half-past twelve in the afternoon to three o'clock in the afternoon and from half-past six in the evening to two o'clock in the morning;

(b) it shall be lawful for intoxicating liquor to be consumed at any time within half an hour after the conclusion of the permitted hours, provided that the liquor was supplied during the permitted hours:

Provided that—

(a) on any occasion when the provision of music and dancing ceases at a time before two o'clock in the morning, the permitted hours shall cease at that time;

(b) nothing in this subsection shall affect the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor at any drinking bar.

(4) If while the provisions of the last foregoing subsection have effect the holder of the licence or the secretary of the club, as the case may be, gives notice to the superintendent of the police of the district wherein

1733
the premises are situated that from such date (not being earlier than fourteen days after the giving of the notice) as may be specified therein the said provisions are to cease to have effect, they shall cease to have effect accordingly.
(5) While the provisions of subsection (3) of this section have effect as respects any premises or part of premises in respect of which a special hours' certificate is in force under section twenty of this Act, there shall be kept affixed in some conspicuous place therein a notice stating the effect of the said provisions; and if this subsection is not complied with the holder of the licence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(REVOCATION OF SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES.)
(1) At any time, not earlier than the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a special hours certificate, while the certificate is in force the Commissioner of Police for the metropolis may apply to the licensing justices or magistrate by whom the certificate was granted for the revocation of the certificate on the ground that while the certificate has been in force—

(a) the premises or part of premises to which the certificate relates have not been used as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section twenty or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section (Special hours certificates for certain clubs) of this Act, as the case may be; or

(b) a person has been convicted of having on the said premises or part contravened section four of the Act of 1921 (which prohibits the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor outside the permitted hours).

and if the justices or magistrate are or is satisfied as to the ground of the application they or he may revoke the certificate.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, if, in the case of a special hours certificate granted under section twenty of this Act—

(a) at any time while the certificate is in force no music and dancing licence is in force as respects the premises or part of premises to which the certificate relates; or

(b) on an application under section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the applicant fails to satisfy the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of the matters requisite for the reduction of duty under that section; or

(c) the Secretary of State gives a notice under subsection (4) of section twenty of this Act,

the certificate shall thereby be revoked.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, if, in the case of a special hours certificate granted under section (Special hours certificates for certain clubs) of this Act at any time while the certificate is in
1734
force no certificate under the Schedule (Certification of club premises for music and dancing) to this Act is in force, the special hours certificate shall thereby be revoked.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES.)
(1) In the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act the expression "music and dancing licence" means a licence granted by the London County Council for the keeping or using of any premises for public dancing, singing, music or other public entertainment.
(2) References in the said provisions to providing music and dancing and refreshment shall be construed as references to providing the same on every weekday, subject to any break in the provision thereof either for a period or periods not exceeding two weeks in any twelve successive months or on any special occasion or by reason of any emergency.
(3) A certificate purporting to be issued on behalf of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and certifying that any premises are such as are specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of this Act shall be receivable in evidence and shall be sufficient proof, unless the contrary is shown, that the premises are such premises.
(4) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the procedure on any application under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act.
(5) Any notice under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall be in writing, and may be given by post.
(6) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by the said provisions to make an order, rules or regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time.
Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
() Notwithstanding anything in section two of the Act of 1921 (which prescribes the permitted hours for Sundays) references in the said provisions to "the permitted hours" shall be deemed to include the period between midnight on Saturdays and two o'clock in the morning on Sunday.
This afternoon we have passed new Clauses providing for late night entertainment in London and I think the House should have an opportunity of considering this Amendment. There is no desire on the part of hon. Members on either side of the House to disturb the Sabbath. We want to preserve the Sabbath as much as we can and I sug-

1735
gest that if we allow restaurants, hotels and night clubs to open until two o'clock on Sunday morning that will not involve any substantial disturbance of the Sabbath, indeed, it would disturb the Sabbath much less than it is disturbed in many cases now by cinemas. The provision of cinema entertainment on Sundays is in direct and absolute competition with church services, but if restaurants, hotels and clubs open on Saturday night until the hour of two on the following morning, there would be no disturbance of church services.
The House might be inclined to accept the Amendment because Saturday night is the night most convenient to many people who wish to go out to dance and dine. If we accept the provision of late night entertainment until 2 or 2.30 in the morning it is surely logical to allow it on the night when workers have the best opportunity of enjoying themselves. It would be wrong, on the night when a person who is doing work which prevents him going to a night club on any other night, to prevent him going on a Saturday night, the only night when he could attend. In the interests of the ordinary man who likes occasionally to go to these places, it would be fitting and proper to have this provision so that the person not possessed of great leisure can go to these places, if he so desires.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) has put the case for his Amendment very reasonably, but I think he will agree, as I know he has listened to the whole of the Debate which has just ended, that this question of providing late night entertainment, even as it is now proposed in the Bill, arouses very great feeling in certain quarters and, in particular, questions of conscience. If we were to extend what is at present proposed into the small hours of Sunday morning, I think it is clear that we should offend a number of people who, in other respects, would be quite prepared to accept the propositions my right hon. Friend is putting before the House. It is scarcely a matter upon which one can make a prolonged argument, but I ask the House to accept the fact that here we are dealing with views
1736
sincerely and genuinely held by a considerable section of the population. Many hon. Members and, no doubt, many people outside, will feel they are already stretching their consciences as far as they can in supporting the provisions of late night entertainment which we are putting forward.
I would appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Amendment and thereby arouse further scruples which at present are not affected. It is a fairly well recognised thing under the law as it has existed that 12 and 12.30 on Saturday night, or early Sunday morning, is the closing hour. I doubt whether anybody will feel that by sticking to that and allowing the extension on other week nights we would be seriously damaging the tourist trade, for instance, and thus affecting the arguments put forward for this Clause. In the absence of a very strong expression of opinion of the House to the contrary. I suggest that this is something which should not be pressed.
Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for the views he has expressed. I am well aware that this Amendment is not likely to be acceptable to all sections of the community. I agree that there are difficulties about it. I only want to air it in the House because it is a logical result of what we desire to do. If the House does not do this, it is not really doing its duty, because to fail to do this is to fail to implement what we have set out to do. I have no desire to embarrass the Home Secretary, to whom I am very grateful for the broadminded view he has already taken on this issue, and, in view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN NOT TO BE EMPLOYED IN BARS.)
(1) If any person under the age of eighteen years is employed in any bar of licensed premises at a time when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor, the holder of the licence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds in the case of a first offence, or twenty pounds in the case of a second or any subsequent offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall not be deemed to be employed in a bar by reason only that in the course of his

1737
employment in some other part of the premises he enters the bar for the purpose of giving or receiving any message or of passing to or from some other part of the premises, being a part to or from which there is no other convenient means of access or egress and not being itself a bar.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be employed by the person for whom he works, notwithstanding that he receives no wages for his work.
(4) Where in any proceedings under this section it is alleged that a person was at any time under the age of eighteen, and he appears to the court then to have been under that age, for the purposes of the proceedings he shall be deemed then to have been under that age unless the contrary is shown.
(5) In this section the expression "bar includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor.
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland—
the expression "licence" means a certificate as defined in Part VII of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903;
the expression "licensed premises" means premises in respect of which a certificate as defined in the said Part VII has been granted and is in force;
the expression "intoxicating liquor" means exciseable liquor.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
When in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) moved an Amendment which dealt with the employment of persons under 18 years of age in bars in the State management area, I found myself so completely in agreement with his arguments that I was able to accept the Amendment. Somewhat to my surprise, immediately thereafter, before the Question could be put, I was pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not to confine this proposal to bars in State management districts, but to extend it to all the bars in the country. I was very grateful for that expression of opinion, which was unanimous, and I undertook to consider between then and today whether it would be possible to meet that point of view.
Since that time the argument of the Committee has been reinforced by paragraph 275 of the final report of the Cowers Committee which says:
"The Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act, 1923, makes it an offence for a licence-holder to supply liquor to a juvenile, or for a juvenile to buy liquor, for consumption in a bar. We regard it as
1738
anomalous that a licence-holder may nevertheless employ a juvenile in a bar; and we recommend that such employment should be prohibited by statute."
That was a striking reinforcement of the view unanimously held on the Committee and I therefore submit this Clause to the House with every confidence.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: I wish very warmly to thank my right hon. Friend for including this Clause in the Bill. It seemed to me when I proposed the original Clause that it was very anomalous that while persons uncles 18 were not permitted to purchase liquor, or to take liquor in a bar, yet those under that age were permitted to sell it. Accordingly, I tried, with some help, to draft a suitable Amendment, but clearly my Amendment was much too short and was not put in legal form. Now I read an extended and much more complicated Amendment, Section 4 of which begins:
"Where in any proceedings under this section it is alleged that a person was at any time under the age of eighteen …."
That is probably the legal phrase for meaning that an individual concerned is over 18. I should have put it differently, but no doubt that is the proper legal phraseology. Clearly it means what I meant in my Amendment, and therefore I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting it and being willing to make it part of the Bill.
Commander Noble: I wish to welcome this new Clause and to say how glad I am that the Home Secretary has been able to include it in this Bill. As he may remember, I had considerable correspondence with him on this subject a year or two ago, and he said he would seek an early opportunity to provide legislation.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PERMITTED HOURS IN THE METROPOLIS.)
(1) So much of subsection (2) of section one of the Act of 1921 as provides that the permitted hours on week days shall, in the case of licensed premises, be such as may be fixed by order of the licensing justices of the licensing district shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) As respects licensed premises in the metropolis, an order made by the licensing justices under the said subsection (2) shall not

1739
fix the permitted hours so as to end earlier than half past ten at night.
(3) Where by virtue of any such order as aforesaid, being an order in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, the permitted hours are so fixed, as respects any licensed premises in the metropolis, as to end earlier than half past ten at night, the following provisions shall have effect, that is is to say—

(a) during the period beginning with the commencement of this Act and ending with the date of the general annual licensing meeting or transfer sessions next held after the said commencement whichever of the two first occurs) the order shall continue to have effect as if this section had not been enacted;

(b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1921 or in any rules made thereunder, the order may be revoked or varied by the licensing justices at the transfer sessions next held after the commencement of this Act, if those sessions occur before the general annual licensing meeting next held as aforesaid;

(c) if at the general annual licensing meeting or transfer sessions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection the licensing justices do not revoke the order or vary it so as to comply with the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, the order shall, on the expiration of the period mentioned in the said paragraph (a), cease to have effect as respects the said licensed premises.—[Mr. Nally.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Nally: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is always the ambition of a provincial, coming as it were from civilisation, to try to do a good turn for the barbaric areas of our country. The object of this Clause is to remedy an outstanding anomaly in relation to London as regards the latest permitted hours. What in effect the new Clause does is to provide that on weekdays and holidays hours of closing of public houses shall not be earlier than 10.30 p.m. As I think will be generally recognised, the objection to these differing closing hours, and the problems that arise not only for the public, but for the licencees concerned, arise because of migration. If there are two neighbouring public houses, or two public houses close to one another, and they have two different closing times, it follows as a matter of course that at 10 o'clock in the one case there is a wholesale migration, and pressure on the staff, and most appalling and stupid difficulties are produced as a consequence.
1740
7.15 p.m.
In the time of the beer shortage it was a matter of wonder to me that when public houses were closing at all sorts of odd times, and when people—including myself on one or two occasions—were rushing from one to the other, that some thirsty citizens were not trampled to death in the ensuing rush. This inconvenience is happening every night in certain areas in London. Under the existing law permitted hours on weekdays are governed by Section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1921, which contains special provisions dealing with London. For present purposes the "metropolis" is defined by Section 20 of the Act of 1921 as meaning the administrative County of London. It seems to us, and there have been considerable protests about this matter, that it ought to be possible to get a far more reasonable arrangement of hours than at present obtain.
Permitted hours in the area to which have referred must be nine in number beginning not earlier than 11 a.m. and ending not later than 11 p.m., with a break of at least two hours some time after 12 noon. But within those limits licensing justices have discretion. The present position is that in the metropolis, in Central London and the City of Westminster and the Boroughs of Holborn and Paddington the closing hour is 11 p.m. Elsewhere it is 10.30 p.m., except in the Kensington licensing district, where it is 10 p.m. In making this point it should be remembered that the Kensington district covers, in addition to Kensington itself, the Boroughs of Chelsea, Fulham and Hammersmith. Quite clearly it is Kensington which is out of step not only with Central London and the Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth across the river, and the rest of the metropolis, but also with the adjoining licensing districts of Willesden and Mortlake.
Kensington is an isolated 10 p.m. district surrounded by 10.30 p.m. districts, except where it adjoins the 11 p.m. area. This situation, and I say this subject to correction, is objectionable to all the borough councils involved without exception. All the locally elected representatives object to this situation. It has from time to time drawn complaints from the police for whom considerable difficulties are created in the migration to certain areas of large numbers of people from one group of

1741
public houses to another group. From time to time the police have sought to impress their point of view upon the Kensington licensing authorities but entirely without success. The London Passenger Transport Board has joined in and state that on certain routes inconvenience is caused because at 10 o'clock there are so to speak, "boarding parties" trying to get on the buses to go to public houses where they can get a drink up to 10.30. If uniformity in this matter is to be secured it is clear that we must have a look at Kensington and find some method of getting the additional half hour on the closing time to apply in the Kensington district.
It is one of the great difficulties of the licensing law as it now stands, that the licensing justices, I understand, are not compelled to give a reason for a decision which they make. There is no compulsion on them, no matter how strong may be the case advanced in favour of the proposal. I have studied with some care the case for the licensed victuallers in whose favour I am not prejudiced—no one can accuse me of that. I have studied the case of the brewers and the police and the London Passenger Transport Board. So far as I can see, their case is an overwhelmingly sound one. The licensing justices—and we cannot complain about it—have never produced a single argument against the overwhelming weight of evidence placed before them for making the Kensington district conform with the surrounding boroughs so far as possible.
It would be wrong for me, and the House would find it boring, if I went through all the aspects of the new Clause. I only wish to make one or two final points. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) is not here so that one could disabuse his mind on this point. The new Clause does not increase the hours in Kensington during the day. They will remain as they are. All it involves is an adjustment at mid-day or in the early evening hours. The Clause has no effect on Sundays. I should make the point that it makes no difference to the registered clubs in the area which, under the Act of 1921, are entitled to fix their closing hour at 11 o'clock irrespective of the time which the justices fix for licensed premises.
1742
I am sorry to have to say it about the Kensington justices, but in this matter they seem to have been unreasonable. They appear to have taken no account of the overwhelming weight of evidence from all sorts of bodies, including many whose only objective is the public weal, comfort and convenience. I hope that my right hon. Friend can find it possible to approve my proposal which rights a grave anomaly. It creates no anomalies at all but it gives to the citizens of Kensington, Hammersmith and Fulham the elementary justice which for far too long they have been denied.
Mr. Forman: I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has drawn attention to an anomaly in the existing hours in London which creates the very gravest difficulties not merely for those concerned with the enforcement of the licensing laws, but for those who have to deal with traffic. Just across the river from Hammersmith Bridge is the Borough of Barnes. The Town Clerk of Barnes last year sent a letter to my Department complaining of the nuisance caused by the coming over of people who hoped to get a last "quick one" on the Barnes side of the river after having stayed in the Hammersmith houses for as long as they were allowed to stay. The local branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union, representing the bus conductors, also complained about the difficulty not merely of the overcrowding of the buses coming over the river from Hammersmith to Barnes, but of dealing with some of the people who, after the Barnes houses had closed, then wanted to get back on to the other side of the river. Every effort has been made to deal with this matter by other means, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down the new Clause which I advise the House to accept.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(FIXING OF NOTICES ON CHURCH DOORS.)
Any provision of the Act of 1910 requiring a notice, or a copy of a notice, to be fixed on the door of a church or chapel shall have effect as if it required the notice or copy to be fixed either on the door of the church

1743
or chapel or on some public and conspicuous place near the door thereof.—[Mr. Baker White.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Baker White: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The position as I understand it is that, under the Act of 1910, licensing notices must be affixed to the church or chapel door and that even if there is a notice board nearby the people fixing the notices are diffident about affixing notices there, because they fear that they may be breaking the law if they do. The result is that some valuable church doors are being badly damaged. Someone sends round a small boy with a large hammer and a pocket full of three inch nails to put up a licensing notice. Instead of the ancient studs being in the doors, a lot of church doors are now studded with other ugly nails. The purpose of this Clause is to make it legal to fix notices in some suitable place adjacent to the church or chapel door.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. Ede: It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) should bring this semi-ecclesiastical matter before the House. I know that there is in his constituency outside the cathedral city one very ancient church which I have no doubt Members of the House have visited from time to time with great interest. I refer to the Church at Reculver where I understand damage has been done to an historic church door by the undue observance of the strict letter of the law. There is a fear, of course, that when these matters are sternly contested in the courts it may be alleged that the law has not been complied with because a notice was not actually affixed to the church door. All other notices—notices in relation to elections, excise notices and so on—are now allowed to be placed on a properly provided board adjacent to the church door. It would seem reasonable that the same rule should apply to these notices under the Licensing Acts. Therefore, I have much pleasure in advising the House to accept the new Clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF STATE MANAGEMENT TO NEW TOWNS.)
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
"(3) In this section the expression new town' means an area designated as the site of a proposed new town under section one of the New Towns Act, 1946, by an order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) which has become operative."
This Amendment would embody in Clause 1 all that is now left in Clause 2. Hon. Members will appreciate that there are now only four and a half lines of that Clause left, and there is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend to leave that out of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection or the said Part II shall authorise the Secretary of State, at any premises where he carries on a business of selling intoxicating liquor for consumption off, but not on, the premises, to carry on any other business except the sale of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks for consumption off the premises, tobacco or matches."
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) is not present, because this meets a point which he raised during the Committee stage. One would have liked to have been able to give him something this afternoon. The point is that the hon. Member feared that paragraph 7 of the First Schedule might be thought to empower the Secretary of State to run grocers' or chemists' shops with off-licences. There was no intention of doing that, and this Amendment makes it clear that that is not authorised.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 29, and to insert:
"prepare a draft scheme for the constituting of the committee.
(6) A development corporation by whom a draft scheme is prepared under the last foregoing subsection shall—

(a) send a copy thereof to every such county and county district council and to the licensing justices for every such licensing district as aforesaid, together with a notice specifying the time (not being less than

1745
twenty-eight days) within which representations with respect to the draft scheme may be made to the corporation;

(b) publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the new town a notice specifying the time aforesaid and a place or places where copies of the draft scheme will be available for inspection at all reasonable hours;

(c) submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the constitution of the local advisory committee either in terms of the draft or with such modifications as appear expedient to the corporation, having regard to any representations duly made;

(d) forward to the Secretary of State, together with the scheme, any representations so made as aforesaid.

(7) Any scheme under this section—"
This Amendment deals with the procedure under which development corporations will submit to the Secretary of State schemes for the constitution of local advisory committees. The substantial part is the new subsection (6) which requires that draft schemes should be sent to the local authorities and the licensing justices with jurisdiction in the new towns; that it should be advertised in the local Press; and that it should be submitted whether modified or not, to the Secretary of State with copies of any representations that have been received.
Amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 2. line 42, to leave out subsection (6), and to insert:
"(6) The provisions of the three last foregoing subsections shall apply in relation to each of the districts specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act—

(a) with the substitution for references to the development corporation of references to the persons acting as a local advisory committee in the district at the passing of this Act;

(b) with the omission of the reference to the coming into operation of the order designating the site of the new town; and

(c) subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph, with the substitution for references to a new town of references to the district;

and until the scheme for the constitution of the local advisory committee for the district has been confirmed by the Secretary of State the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be the local advisory committee for the district."
This Amendment carries out the intention announced by my right hon. Friend in Committee upstairs that an attempt should be made to give to existing State
1746
management districts the same measure of self-government with regard to the constitution of their advisory committees as is proposed for the new towns. The difficulty, of course, is that, in the existing districts, unlike the new towns, no development Corporations exist, and therefore the Amendment has to be adapted to meet that situation.
Amendment agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:
"(a) for the words 'county and county district council,' there shall be substituted the words 'county town and district council'."
This Amendment is in response to a suggestion made by the Opposition in Committee. Its effect is to require that in Scotland a district council, as well as county and town councils, whose area includes any part of a new town or an existing State management district, should be consulted in the preparation of any scheme. We think that any body of this kind, being a local body, ought to be represented and consulted, and this Amendment brings in the district councils in addition to the town and county councils.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 15, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause 3.—(RESTRICTION OF SALE AND SUPPLY, OTHERWISE THAN BY SECRETARY OF STATE, OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
"or in premises to which any justice's licence attached to such premises or any such registered club may be removed."
The proviso at the moment gives protection to anything done in premises which were licensed premises or a registered club when State management came into operation in the district, and which have continued to be licensed premises or registered clubs, as the case may be, since that time. It may be that for a number of reasons—one that occurs most readily is if there had been a fire or some other calamity of that kind, but of course there may be other reasons

1747
which would result from the development or the control of development in the area—the premises to which the licence was attached at the time when State management came into operation, or the premises in which the club was situated when the scheme came into operation, may have been destroyed or may have disappeared, and the licence may have been removed. In that case it would be a special removal to other premises. Again, the club might have changed its venue. We want to have protection given in what is really the substance of the matter; that is, the holder of the licence or the people running the club.
I think that the position truly is that one does not know how long this period will be, and I shall be very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman on this point. As I understand it, the period from the time when State management comes into operation in the district may be any time in the future. There may be some differences in different parts of the country as to when that time will occur. Although I am always prepared to consider carefully anything that the right hon. Gentleman suggests on a practical point of this sort, I cannot see how, if the intention is to protect the licences that remain on the same premises, where through some misfortune the licence has been moved to another part of the town, it should not receive the same protection. The same basis and the same principle seem to me to apply in the case of a club. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point, which seems to be a short and simple one, and one that is deserving of his attention simply to make the Clause complete.
Mr. Marlowe: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say to meet this point, because as I understood him during the Committee stage, he did express an intention to do so. It is necessary for the House to appreciate the problem. Under the first Clause of this Bill there comes a point when, as soon as the Bill becomes law, the designated town becomes a State management area, and, under Clauses 5 and 6, two things can subsequently take place at an entirely indefinite time. Under Clause 5, Parliament gives power to the Secretary of State in a State management area to
1748
acquire licences or the premises which carry the licences and enables the right hon. Gentleman himself to take on the business of selling liquor in place of the ordinary publican. Under Clause 6, he may extinguish a licence. What we are trying to deal with is the position which occurs between the time when the place becomes a State management area and when the right hon. Gentleman does one or the other of these two things.
Clause 3 as it stands safeguards the licences of premises in existence during that interim period. As the right hon. Gentleman well understands, there may well arise circumstances in which the licence may be removed for necessary reasons to other premises, and what we are seeking to do is to safeguard the existence of the licence. In the licensed trade the licence is the valuable asset, but we are not trying to increase the number of licences in a State management area, and this proposal would not mean that there would be any more licences, though it would make sure that there were not any less.
During the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman, on the assumption that we were trying to deal with a case where the premises had been burned and the licence had been preserved, said this:
"On the assumption that we are trying only to deal with such an exceptional case, I think there is a case for an Amendment, and between now and the Report stage, I will endeavour to find a form of words which will enable that point to be met, but the undertaking is limited to that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 22nd February, 1949; c. 271.]
The right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to find a form of words, because I do not see any Amendment on the Order Paper to that effect, and, for that reason, we have put down this Amendment. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking must be limited, and, if, one takes a broad view of the matter, in the case of premises being burned, I would not seek to ask him to go beyond that, though I see no difficulty in extending it beyond that point. Where, for any good reason, it may be necessary to preserve and remove a licence, we do not see why such protection should not be given in order that the licence should be preserved. I think the Minister was in sympathy with the case, and that his only difficulty was in finding a form of words in which to meet it. I suggest that the

1749
words of the Amendment do meet that position, and I accordingly ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot carry further his welcoming words in Committee by accepting the Amendment now.
Mr. Ede: Here, again, I have tried very hard to find a form of words that would cover the point which I undertook to cover and no more, and I am bound to say that I have failed to do it. The effect of this Amendment would be to place all removals, for whatever cause, outside my control when I am dealing with the State management scheme, and that is a position which I could not contemplate. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will agree that it is not necessary to deal with this question of clubs because I have no power to acquire clubs, and that, therefore, if it was put in for an abundance of caution, it was not actually needed. I cannot contemplate a situation where all removals would be placed outside my jurisdiction in these cases. However, if between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, I can deal with the very limited point with which I undertook to deal, that is, places that are burned down or similarly destroyed by what might be termed—it might seem almost blasphemous—an act of God, I will endeavour to do so, but I cannot go to the length that this Amendment, which is similar to the one moved in Committee, proposes that I should go.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I wish to ask him to consider the matter again from the point of view of a special removal and an ordinary removal, because I think he will agree with me that a special removal can only be obtained when something in the nature of an act of God has occurred. Like him, I do not want to be blasphemous, but he will decide whether it is blasphemy or not to include in the phrase "act of God" the action of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
Mr. Ede: I would prefer to refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister concerned. On all these points, I am very anxious to give all the reasonable assurances I can without hampering the appropriate development of the scheme that may be under consideration in the new town. If I can find some help in the words which the right hon. and
1750
learned Gentleman has just suggested, I will certainly do so.
Mr. C. Williams: Quite frankly, I am very disappointed with what the right hon. Gentleman has said because he does not appear to be seriously trying to meet the very clear point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). I know he would like to do so, and may I suggest to him that there is a perfectly easy way in which he could meet the point? He could quite easily do what usually happens on these complicated Bills, which is to have a Law Officer present who would be compelled to say that my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is perfect in sense, and that it would in no way do what the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of doing—handicap the development of these areas. All that this would do—and I think it is quite a clear thing from what I can make out of it, and I have tried to see exactly how it will work—is that where by some misfortune or otherwise, the premises have been put out of action, it would give the existing tenant the right to carry the licence to new premises. Surely that is only a fair thing to do. There has been no effort on our side of the House to increase the number of licences. It is not from this side, for instance, that legislation has been introduced to legalise pubs, and we have done everything possible to make it easy and fair for those who are being removed.
I am sure that the Home Secretary must admit that nothing would have been put in by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby, with his great legal knowledge, which could possibly do any harm in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman fears. That is not the sense of his Amendment; I think the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. If he had his Law Officer present, he might be able to get out of the position in which he has placed himself. I hope this Amendment will be inserted in the Bill because it seems fair and just to those who, by no ill-doing on their part, but by one of the misfortunes which might fall on anybody, are going to lose their licence when it may be perfectly possible for them to carry on in some other premises.
7.45 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I was naturally disappointed to hear the right

1751
hon. Gentleman say that he had not succeeded in finding a form of words to deal with this difficulty, particularly as in Committee upstairs we managed to narrow this issue very considerably. I have been looking again at our proceedings in Committee and I find that following the moving of that Amendment by my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), the Under-Secretary, who replied, said:
"To do so would make a very large hole in the scheme, which is designed to plan facilities generally throughout the area."
After a little further debate, we got to the point where the Home Secretary—and this is really why I rise because I think that remark of his upstairs narrowed the point rather more than he intends to do now, and because I hope he will be good enough to say that he will examine it again—said:
"I understand that what the Opposition desire is to deal with what will be, in the state of the existing law with regard to arson, a very exceptional circumstance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 22nd February, 1949; c. 269, 271.]
Well, of course, that is no act of God; quite the contrary. Arson is an act of sabotage, and while we are looking at it again—
Mr. Ede: I recognise that while the law of arson prevented people from starting fires, it limited it to those things which I called, rather colloquially, an act of God.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be good enough to have another look at this. We are trying to deal with a case of genuine misfortune where, through no fault of the owner, the licensee or anyone else, the premises are destroyed, and, thereby, there is a reduction in the number of houses by one. We maintain that the licence should remain in existence even though the building has disappeared. If that is the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman is going to try to do in another place, I wish him well, because he will remember that in the Committee upstairs we were almost unanimous on this point.
Sir D. Maxwell Ffye: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN NOT TO BE EMPLOYED IN STATE MANAGEMENT BARS.)
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out Clause 4.
This is consequential on the new Clause which we have already agreed to this afternoon, which gives general application to the prohibition of the employment in bars of any persons under 18 years of age. The old Clause 4 applied only to employment under the said management.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(ACQUISITION OF LAND.)
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out "compulsory purchase," and to insert "agreement."
My hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) pointed out a moment ago the scheme of the Bill. In Clause 3, as the House has appreciated, no person other than the authorised agent of the Secretary of State shall sell intoxicating liquor in a State management district. But there is a proviso to the effect that the subsection shall not apply to anything done in premises which are licensed premises when State management comes into operation—that is, to premises which are licensed premises when this Bill is assented to.
The next step is that under Clause 5 the Secretary of State may acquire by agreement any land, whether in a State management district or elsewhere, and, subject to the provisions of the Clause, acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed premises in a State management district. The scheme, of which I make no criticism at this stage, at earlier stages caused a considerable amount of confusion because, as you will understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, those who have not the good fortune to belong to the same profession as you and I, read Clause 3 and the proviso and accepted that proviso as letting out existing licensees, and thereupon rejoiced and thought that that was the full extent of the operation of the Bill.
But, of course, on passing on to Clause 5, as you and I have done, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—because we have so often been taught that we must not take any part of a statute or a Bill by itself but that we

1753
should consider it in the setting of a whole statute or a whole Bill—one then came to the position that the Secretary of State has the right of compulsory purchase in the case of licensed premises.
That means that the licensees in the State management districts—or, put in another way, the licensees of the houses that are already in the districts where the new towns are to be built—are liable to lose their livelihood by the compulsory acquisition of their houses.
We dealt with the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to meet that position in the first new Clause which was discussed today, and then there was an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepted. But even on that basis, even recognising the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman has made to try to help the licensees who are caught in these areas of State management, we are still left in the position, as the right hon. Gentleman very frankly and properly told the House, whereby in regard to these licensees he can only proceed, and indeed we could only ask him to proceed, so far as was practicable and so far as fitted in with the policy which he is driven to follow—namely, that of being prepared to extinguish licences.
One has to consider whether this compulsory acquisition is really necessary at all. One starts from the view that in the State management districts there are at the moment, as we have heard so often, only a few buildings and very few public houses; in fact, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton reminded the House this afternoon, the Lord President of the Council, in winding up on Second Reading, thought there were no houses at all. But one may fairly assume that when the Lord President of the Council mistakenly thinks that there are no houses at all, there are not many houses or he would not have fallen into that error. Therefore, we start from the point that there are not many houses, and it is not a question of getting fewer houses than we start with. That is the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors had to deal at Carlisle, because of the very special circumstances that existed at that time.
But that is quite a different matter. This is not an old-established border town with very special industrial circumstances. These are ex hypothesi country districts in which new towns are going to be
1754
placed. Therefore, I ask the House to start—and I submit it is reasonable that the House should start—from the hypothesis that we must want more public houses than there are at present. We cannot by any stretch of the imagination want fewer houses, except the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) who would like a blank negation of public houses.
Mr. J. Hudson: There could still be fewer without the blank negation.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I thought I was correctly expressing the views of the hon. Member for West Ealing in saying that he would like a blank negation, but of course between what he wants and what will happen there are various shades of possibility which he must recognise. I do not think that anyone else, apart from those who hold his view, would suggest that in the new towns there should be fewer houses than there are existing in the countryside. That can be ruled out.
The next point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and will no doubt make again, was: "What about the distribution of the houses? It may be that some of the existing houses are not in a suitable position, and I must have the power to acquire them in order to see that they are placed in a suitable position." Again I put the position as it seems to me. If they are not in a suitable position, then the development corporation of the new town will obviously want to use that site for something else. I think that follows as a logical sequence of argument. One starts by saying that the public house ought not to be there; that is part of the area of the new town; therefore, something else should be there. It may be an open space or it may be another building. Of course, the development corporation would have power under their general powers to acquire it with other parts of the town which are necessary for the development scheme.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is following me with his usual courtesy, to say whether there is a logical flaw in the next step, because I cannot see it myself. The licensee in theory and the owners of the house in fact would combine to apply for a special removal, and then they would be looking for a place where they could suitably put their house according to the needs of the town. I

1755
do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. I think he felt that in order to have a special removal, or an ordinary removal—although in this case it would be a special removal—the initiative rests with the licensee, and the licensee is, of course, a different person from himself on this basis. I do not believe that it is a practical difficulty that in those circumstances the licensee would move to an unsuitable spot. After all, he has got to have suitable premises before he can get his removal. He has to have suitable plans approved. Before he can have suitable premises, he has to have the planning authority which allows him to put the premises there. Therefore, I do not believe that he can move a public house from one unwanted spot to another unwanted spot.
8.0 p.m.
If that is the position—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point again—I do not see why he wants the compulsory powers of purchase. If he abdicated from his position of wanting the compulsory powers, a great deal of the difficulty would go. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we are on a point here which, quite irrespective of party, is really worrying people. People are wondering whether they are to be turned out of their jobs and put into a position of difficulty at the present time. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to find them jobs, and we accept what he has said, but it is a very difficult situation when people lose jobs, and they will be worried, short of any certainty of another job being found for them. I know that Members opposite can bring in the past. We are not discussing that but this human problem. We suggest that there is really no need for the course of action proposed in the Bill, and that if the right hon. Gentleman were able to do without this element of compulsion, he would do away with one of the human difficulties and improve the Bill immensely.
Mr. C. Williams: Now that the Government have been reinforced by the eminent legal authority of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I hope it may be possible to have some carefully considered legal advice on this matter. I am not in the least surprised that this provision is
1756
in the Bill, because we all know how devoted the Government are to compulsory powers. There are many things which are compulsory under this Government that would never have been compulsory under a Tory Government. The Government are continually asking for compulsory powers. They have even asked for powers of compulsion in regard to labour, which is something we should never have done. This Bill merely emphasises how willing the Home Secretary is to have compulsory powers, which leads me to believe that no argument will make him give way on this Amendment.
Let us examine for a minute or two how wide are these powers for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking. Paragraph (b) states that the right hon. Gentleman may,
"subject to the provisions of this section, acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed premises in a State management district and any land in such a district required for the erection or extension of, or otherwise for use in connection with, any premises in a State management district in which the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail is, or is to be, carried on on behalf of the Secretary of State."
Everyone knows that all sorts of things can be added, if a public house is being enlarged, for the purpose of running the establishment. For instance, certain hotels have a nice bit of fishing, and it is conceivable that the compulsory powers may be used to acquire that fishing. Subject to any legal argument against it, I cannot see how that can be disproved. It means also that compulsory powers can be used for golf courses, cricket grounds or skittle alleys. Members should realise that this is not an innocent little provision to deal with small pieces of land, but is something which can be extended to a considerable degree. We all know the vital differences there are at the present time between various Ministers. It may be that these compulsory powers will be used in such a way as to acquire a vast amount of land against the interests of food production.
This Clause can be interpreted and used very widely indeed, unless it is definitely prescribed, in spite of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, whose statements I do not mistrust any more than those of any other Member on the Government Front Bench If the right hon. Gentleman gets frivolous on this matter, I think I can quote at least one

1757
Bill on which he has changed his mind. I do not want to introduce any controversial note, but merely wish to state the fact that the Government are as usual endeavouring in every possible way to extend their powers. On the other hand, if the Government accept this Amendment they will be showing that they are willing to acquire licensed premises in a reasonable way by agreement. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to reply to this Amendment which leads one to believe that he is now completely convinced he has no need for these powers. If not, I hope that this Amendment will be taken to a Division.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I, too, deprecate the use of powers of compulsory purchase for the purpose set out in the Clause, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to agree that, if possible, he should avoid taking these powers. I would not suggest that the powers of compulsory purchase are not vested in various authorities for all sorts of purposes under a great variety of statutes—it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is in no way departing from precedent in giving himself powers of compulsory purchase—but on this I should like to make two observations. If powers of compulsory purchase are to be given to the Home Secretary for the purposes specified in the Clause then, of course, those powers make the right hon. Gentleman judge in his own cause. When a local authority or statutory undertaker is given powers of compulsory purchase there is always the right of objection and inquiry. Before the compulsory purchase order becomes effective it has to be confirmed by a Minister, that is to say, the acquiring authority does not have the final word as to whether or not the order which it makes should become effective.
Where, however, powers of compulsory purchase are given to a Minister under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, he is judge in his own case as to whether the objections to such an order should be upheld. That is always an unsatisfactory position, and although it may be unavoidable in some cases it is a position which should be restricted to the absolute minimum because the spirit of it runs counter to our basic
1758
British constitutional theory that no man should be judge in his own case.
For that reason I suggest that when new powers of compulsory purchase are given to a Minister, they must always be most jealously scrutinised by the House to ensure that the case for them is made up to the hilt. If that is so, this Clause must be jealously scrutinised to see that the powers are vitally necessary before the House gives them to the Secretary of State.
I shall not repeat the admirably lucid argument put before the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). I would add only this: In some of the areas designated for new towns which will become State management districts under the Bill there are already old-established licensed premises. In these towns there are many people who were long resident there before the designation of the new town came into force. It is, I think, vital that the rights of those already existing should be preserved, and that some degree of continuity should, if possible, be preserved between the previously existing community and the new community which is coming into being as a result of the designation of the area as a new town. I have always hoped that it will be possible that the licensed premises existing in the designated areas will be carried on as they are now, that is to say, as licensed premises—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the Amendment. This is a question of taking over by compulsory purchase or by agreement. The other argument was discussed earlier today.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to you, Sir, for pointing out the limitations of the Amendment, of which, with great respect, I was already aware; the point I was about to make, and which my argument was leading up to, was that if powers of compulsory acquisition are given in such a way that the Secretary of State becomes judge as to whether or not the power should take effect in any given case, it is by that degree the less likely that any of the existing licensed premises will continue under their present ownership. If, on the other hand, the powers are confined to purchase by agreement I think we can

1759
reasonably hope that there will be a greater degree of continuity of the previously existing system.
In conclusion, the people already living in the designated areas have been, naturally somewhat affronted at the compulsory powers already used for the setting up of new towns. It could hardly be otherwise, and I therefore put this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman. If he and the House as a whole want a spirit of harmony to prevail in these new towns, it is his duty to confine his powers of compulsory purchase to the minimum. For these reasons I trust that this very reasonable Amendment will commend itself to the good sense of the House.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a little surprising to find that, so far, this Amendment has had no support from the other side of the House. It is an Amendment designed to safeguard the rights and means of earning their livelihood of a respectable and reputable section of the community. It is also surprising that no hon. Member opposite has in this Debate supported the protection of those rights. I stress "in this Debate" because, a short time ago, assurances were being given by Members opposite as to their attitude in this matter.
I am particularly surprised not to see in their places tonight either the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Cross-man) or the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman). On 8th February this year both hon. Members stated that they would support an Amendment to preserve the rights of existing licence holders in the new town itself or the surrounding countryside—which is precisely what this Amendment is designed to do. They stated that in letters to their constituents. Notice was served on those hon. Members during the Committee stage, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) quoted what I have just told the House, and added:
"Neither hon. Member is a member of this Committee, but I hope that when we come to the Report stage we shall have the opportunity of putting down this Amendment again so that these two hon. Members will have a chance of implementing their undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 24th February, 1949; c. 327.]
1760
I do not know whether before the Division is taken those hon. Members will be present to implement their undertaking, but it is an interesting illustration of the lack of understanding on the part of hon. Members opposite when two hon. Members, whose intellectual distinction is beyond all question, should have apparently so misapprehended the Bill that they gave that pledge and now find themselves in no position either to redeem or explain it. But confusion as to what the Bill did was not even confined to those two hon. Members for East and West Coventry. I refer to them particularly, because I was rather pinning my hopes for this Amendment on the hon. Member for East Coventry. This House has, on a previous occasion, seen how that hon. Member has been able to assert his will, even against Ministers of the Crown. I had hoped that the Home Secretary this evening would have gone the sorry way of the Minister of Defence.
It is not only back bench Members opposite who have completely misrepresented this Bill, and who, on the pledges which they have given, should now find themselves supporting this Amendment. The Financial Secretary to the War Office wrote to a constituent, on 9th December:
"The Licensing Bill deals only with such new public houses as will be built in the proposed new towns and the country districts in their immediate neighbourhood."
We are concerned, in this Amendment, to protect the existing public houses, and if the Financial Secretary to the War Office understood this Bill when he gave that pledge to his constituent, he must find himself morally bound to support this Amendment, thereby confining the interferences of the Home Secretary to the new public houses, and protecting the old. I do not desire to weary the House by continuing on this point, but a considerable number of Members opposite have put themselves in the same position, and the House is entitled to some explanation as to how pledges of that sort have apparently been given; so far, at any rate, there has been no indication of any intention to redeem them. There is, in particular, the blunt statement of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock):
"There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses."
That statement lacks nothing in clarity. If this Amendment is carried it may

1761
become a fact, but as the Bill stands, it is in flat contradiction to the facts.
I am perfectly certain that the Home Secretary knew what he was doing in his drafting of this Bill. It is a pity that he did not make his position a little clearer to his supporters. Had he done so, then assuming that these pledges to have been sincerely given, those Members could not possibly have supported the Bill in its earlier stages and could not possibly do so tonight. The very fact that those statements were made is highly material to the issue immediately before us. Hon. Members quite obviously thought, when they gave those pledges, that it was wrong to arm the Home Secretary with power compulsorily to acquire existing licensed premises; that is inherent and implicit in what they have said. Yet, we have here to decide that precise issue.
The Home Secretary is proposing to arm himself with this power of compulsory acquisition. He is proposing to do so although we have offered him the alternative of voluntary purchase. if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this Amendment, it will be a clear indication to the people outside who are directly affected by this matter, that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his superficial air of reasonableness and conciliation, regards compulsion as a necessary element in his State public house system in the new towns. Therefore, we shall be entitled to say, in words that have been used in another context, to those outside who have been lulled by the pledges given by hon. Members opposite that "You have been warned."
Mr. Ede: The real case behind this Amendment was given away in one phrase that was used by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). He said, "We are talking about compulsory purchase; it is the licensee in theory but the owner of the house in practice." That destroys the greater part of the argument which we have heard on this Amendment, except for that used by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and I cannot help thinking that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby reads the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay, if he ever inflicts such punishment upon himself, he will not thank him for the line which
1762
he adopted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a closely argued speech without once alluding to the fact that this Amendment was wider than that which was moved in Committee upstairs, and included land as well as licensed premises.
When the hon. Member for Torquay listed the kind of adjunct to a public house or hotel which it might be necessary to acquire, I kept asking myself, "Why not?" If an hotel run under private enterprise finds it attractive to have in conjunction with it fishing rights, a golf course, a tennis court or a skittle alley—though I hardly think that that is associated with an hotel, but if a public house wants a skittle alley—why not, and why should the owner of adjoining land be entitled to hold the State to ransom if the State wishes to acquire that land to carry out that necessary public improvement? I thought that if the hon. Gentleman had only spoken long enough he would have convinced the Members on his own side of the House of the desirability of providing this power.
I wish to emphasise the fact that this Amendment deals with the acquisition of premises, and that what happens to the person who is employed in the premises so acquired is dealt with by an Amendment which was moved earlier today, and which I accepted; I have undertaken that his position shall he safeguarded—not merely the position of the actual licensee but the position of the other people who may be employed on the premises. If we are to have a properly organised scheme inside the State management area, it is essential that when the advisory committee makes its recommendations to the Secretary of State, and they are accepted, there shall be power to carry those recommendations into effect with reasonable economy and with certainty. If one is left merely with the power to acquire either licensed premises or the necessary land by agreement, it is quite clear that neither of those two objects can be guaranteed.
8.30 p.m.
I should have thought it would have been realised that in an effort properly to lay out the licensed premises of a considerable area it might be necessary on occasion to have resort to compulsory powers, without any injustice being inflicted. My experience, over a life that

1763
is now far too long in dealing with the acquisition of property, has been that the possession of compulsory powers, without the powers being in fact exercised, very often enables arrangements to be made that could not be made were the compulsory powers absent. I recollect when I was at the Board of Education going once to a remote county where I pointed out that it was necessary in the interests of the educational facilities of a certain school that certain land in the proximity of the school should be acquired. The Chairman of the Education Committee said, "I agree, but my county council makes the boast that it has never exercised compulsory powers. The owner of the land knows that and I cannot get the land by agreement at any price at which the county council would look." I am glad to say that the record of the county council was broken as a result of a report which I made.
That is the position with which one is constantly faced in one's efforts to forward the public interest in this matter. Upstairs in Committee this Amendment was limited to the acquisition of the licensed premises. Now the land is also included in the requirement that it must be acquired by agreement and that compulsory powers will be denied. I say that any effort to carry on this scheme limited by this Amendment would be quite futile and I must ask the House, therefore, to reject the Amendment. As a matter of fact, I have pointed out that the tenant, the licensee, is already amply protected by what we have done this afternoon and that we are dealing here with the owner and not with the employed person.
Mr. Marlowe: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to explain to hon. Members on his own side of the House what this Clause is about because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, many hon. Members were under a complete misapprehension on this matter on Second Reading. It is necessary that it should be clearly understood that this Amendment goes to the very root of the question of whether the Government are compulsorily to take over licensed premises which already exist in new towns which become
1764
State management areas. Hon. Members opposite who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill in the belief that the Bill did not affect any existing licences voted in error and it is right that they should be given an opportunity by this Amendment, to put right the error which they then made.
I repeat the question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. Where are the two hon. Members who represent Coventry and who told their constituents that there was no power in this Bill to take over existing licences? Are we to assume that those hon. Members were content to take the advantage of support from their constituents by telling them that which was totally untrue and are now not prepared to come here and withdraw that statement so that it can be revealed publicly in their Press that they made complete fools of themselves when they said it was so? After all, that is what they said; that is the statement to which they committed themselves. I gave them very clear notice on the Committee stage that I should raise this matter in the House on the Report stage and that I should expect them to withdraw that entirely false statement.
I see that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) is here, and I am very glad to see he is here. Although, equally, he committed himself to a similarly fatuous statement, he withdrew it at an early opportunity.
Mr. Hastings Mr. Hastings rose—
Mr. Marlowe: I will give way in a minute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I only want to complete my sentence and then I will give way to the hon. Member. I said I was very glad to see him here. My objection to the hon. Member on this score is that it was possible for an hon. Member who had voted for the Second Reading of this Bill to commit himself to such a statement as that which the hon. Member himself agreed he had said when he made the following comments on the Committee stage:
"… that it is quite true that I did say, in reply to a petition, that the Bill was not intended to take over and nationalise all licensed houses in a State management area.
On re-reading the Bill a few days later. I found that I had made an error as to the powers of the Bill, and I wrote to those concerned pointing out that my statement was incorrect, and apologising for the error made.

1765
—[OFFICIAL REPORT: Standing Committee B; 24th February, 1949; c. 323.]
Mr. Hastings: I should like to point out to the House that that statement which I made in the Committee was a statement of the facts. I should like to point out that if the individual to whom I had written, and made that statement, and to whom I had replied, had had the decency to have informed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) of my second letter, this statement would not have been made. I would trust at any rate to his honesty not to read an incorrect statement which was corrected almost immediately.
Mr. Marlowe: I have been perfectly fair. I read out the hon. Gentleman's correction as well. That was why I did not wish to be interrupted a moment or two ago. I wanted to read out the correction at the same time as the misstatement. The point is that it is lamentable that an hon. Member should have voted on the Bill without knowing what was in it. That is the point of the argument.
Mr. Hastings: I voted for the Bill, it is quite true; but the time when I voted for the Bill was a long time after the date of the reply to the petition to which reference has been made.
Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it that way. The position of the hon. Gentleman is, that he one day committed himself to one statement on the Bill and another day committed himself to precisely the opposite. The importance of the point is that now we have down an Amendment to try to achieve precisely the position the hon. Gentleman thought existed at first.
Mr. Hastings: The statement has been made that I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill before having made my statement and my correction. That is not correct.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Marlowe: I shall not withdraw. I have nothing to withdraw. I am only trying to help the hon. Gentleman to clear his mind, and to give him an opportunity of voting on this Amendment, now that he does know what the Bill is about. I should think he would welcome the opportunity of voting now that the position has been clarified for him. However, as I pointed out before, it is scarcely fair to blame hon. Gentlemen
1766
opposite on this point, for they were misled by the Leader of the House. The Lord President of the Council himself on Second Reading misled hon. Gentlemen opposite by telling them that there were no existing licences in the new towns or the Bill, because the new towns did not exist. That was just before the Vote was taken, and it was entirely the fault of the Lord President of the Council that hon. Gentlemen were misled.
Where they have been misled in this matter is this. When the Lord President made that statement he had not appreciated that this Bill applied to areas which were designated and became State management areas in which there were already existing towns and villages. It is possible under the New Towns Acts for a conglomeration of villages and, perhaps, adjacent town areas, too, to become a new town. In those areas there will be already a number of existing licences. The Lord President, as he made clear in his Second Reading speech, had not understood all that. He thought "new town" meant simply a town where no buildings were yet, and which would subsequently come into being at a later date. That is where he misled those who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill.
I want to come to the argument, such as it was, which the Home Secretary put up just now. He said that it was necessary for him to have these powers of compulsory acquisition, for he could not have a position where there were other licensees in the new towns operating in competition with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said nothing of the kind."] I am paraphrasing what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he did not say it, it is what he meant. If he did not say it, I will say it for him. That can be the only possible interpretation of the action of the right hon. Gentleman in insisting on these powers of compulsory acquisition. He could not stand up to the competition of free enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman must have a monopoly, and if he has not, he will be beaten by the private enterprise licensee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, 'No," and if that is so, why not let the private licensee carry on?
If hon. Gentlemen opposite are fully satisfied that there is no danger to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme by letting the private licensee carry on, they should vote for our Amendment and ensure that

1767
he will carry on. That is all we are seeking to do in this Amendment. We want to prevent existing licensees being driven out of business by compulsory acquisition, and we think they should be allowed to continue to compete with the right hon. Gentleman's nationalised public houses. We believe the private licensee ought to continue in fair competition with the nationalised public house of the right hon. Gentleman. The reason the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment is that he dare not stand up to that competition, and he desires to create a monopoly.
Mr. Proctor: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) did not see fit to withdraw his statement with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). His attitude did not come up to what is regarded as the usual standard of this House. My hon. Friend explained that he had withdrawn the statement before voting. As everyone knows a Bill is published some time before Second Reading, and I assume that took place in this case. The hon. and learned Gentleman should have withdrawn.
Much misrepresentation is taking place on this Amendment and is created by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to the fact that we were inferring that somebody was not earning an honest livelihood. Very few if any dealt with under this Clause would be in the public houses. This Clause deals with landlords and owners and not with licensees and tenants. Therefore, it is an attempt to prevent the State acquiring property from those who own and not those who manage them and who are the licensees. This compulsory power is absolutely necessary if this scheme is to be tried out.
Mr. Grimston: The point made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) may be true in the majority of cases, but for all I know there may be now or in the hereinafter, someone who owns his public house. He would be equally affected by this Clause. This matter was discussed upstairs and we had a very close division in the Committee. Some hon. Members opposite voted with us and some abstained. There has been a
1768
great deal of misunderstanding about this matter. When the Bill first appeared, it was thought by a great many people, including a number of hon. Members opposite, that the Bill gave complete immunity to existing licence-holders. They thought that because of the words in Clause 3 where it says that the Clause shall not apply
"to anything done in premises which were licensed premises or a registered club when State management came into operation …"
That seemed clear enough, as showing that existing licence-holders were fully protected, but the bottom was completely knocked out of that situation by the compulsory powers which are taken in Clause 5. That was where hon. Members went wrong. There was no doubt much misapprehension about this matter.
8.45 p.m.
A great many licence-holders and others wrote in to hon. Members of all parties because they were anxious to know their position. Many of them received assurances from hon. Members opposite that no existing licence-holder would be affected. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) spotted the mistake that he had made, and he wrote and corrected the assurance that he had given. For all I know there may be many other hon. Members opposite who have done the same thing, and there may be many who have not—not by intention, but because they have overlooked the matter. Therefore, we face the position that there has gone out an impression, given by many hon. Members opposite, that existing licence-holders should not be interfered with. The fact that they gave those assurances indicates that in their real opinion existing licence-holders should not be interfered with.
What is the size of the problem? It cannot be a very large one. To start with, it will only occur with new towns where there is already a nucleus. As time goes on, that nucleus will become less and less. With the completely virgin new town the problem does not arise at all. In view of the assurances that have been given, it would be morally right that this provision should be put into the Bill, and that is what we advocate. In many cases under present nationalising legislation, a small number of individuals are harshly treated. We had

1769
a case of it the other day, and I give it as an illustration and do not propose to expand it, in which a small minority in the old Cable and Wireless have had a very bad deal. Their position has been considerably worsened.
It is true that the Home Secretary has introduced a new Clause today and has accepted an Amendment which make the licence holders' position better, but there is no absolute guarantee for the individual that he will not lose his job. He will be found a home if the Home Secretary takes over his pub and, as far as practicable, he will be found a job. That is very different from giving him complete immunity. In cases of this sort there may be men who have owned a publichouse or who have been publicans for a number of years, and who do not wish to be disturbed. They do not wish to become managers or tenants under the State.
The hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) introduced rather a sinister note earlier in the afternoon when he said that the Home Secretary might want to get rid of one of these people who did not believe in nationalisation. Although that idea may not be in the mind of the Home Secretary, the fact that the hon. Member made that statement shows that the idea is in the minds of some hon. Members opposite. That is the kind of thing against which we want to protect the individual.
Dr. Segal: I would point out that I said nothing of the sort. I said that in the case of a hypothetical contingency such as that arising, the Home Secretary is entitled to arm himself with such powers as might prevent any damage of that kind.
Mr. Grimston: That explanation does not make the matter better. The hon. Member is merely saying that the Home Secretary should have the power to turn out a man who is of a different political opinion and who, in his opinion, will not run his State-managed house properly. It is against that sort of political victimisation that we wish to protect individuals in the nuclei of these new towns. By his remark the hon. Gentleman has strengthened our case.
A small point arose during the Committee stage and the right hon. Gentleman
1770
said that he would look at it before the Report stage. He said it was not his contention that these powers should apply to clubs nor that he should have the power to take over any club by compulsion. There was a question whether "licensed premises" in the Clause covers clubs or not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now give me a categorical assurance.
Mr. Ede: I have very carefully examined this, and it does not. The reference to clubs in the Amendment is quite unnecessary.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It clears that point out of the way. However, that does not clear up the point we make about the position of the individual. I believe that from the assurances they unwittingly gave, many hon. Members opposite agree with us on the principle that in these cases the individual should not be compulsorily thrown out of his job. That is the principle behind the Amendment, and in view of the Home Secretary's attitude I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide on this issue.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to intervene at any length but we must clear up certain points before we go into the Lobby which we cannot avoid doing. I see that the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) is now in his place. He may have been told that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) quoted from a letter of his as an example of the misunderstanding which existed on the other side of the House as to the meaning of this Clause. The letter said:
"There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses."
Mr. Braddock: I would point out that that letter was in connection with my own constituency where, owing to the attitude of the publicans, agitation was being promoted to suggest that we were out to take over all public houses.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Hon. Members opposite should listen to what I have to say before they ask me to withdraw what I have not yet said. That was a quotation from a letter of the hon. Gentleman, but there are existing public houses in

1771
areas designated as new towns which are to become State management areas. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to imply by this letter that there is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses in what will be State management areas? Has he explained the letter to his own constituents? If he has not done so, obviously they are still under a misapprehension even if he is not.
Mr. Braddock: No demand has been made to me to explain the letter. It would only have been decent of hon. Members opposite, knowing that they were to bring this up—it must have been planned—to give me notice of it. I am a new Member of this House but I thought that it was ordinary courtesy when matters of this sort are being brought up to give notice to that effect. I repeat again that the agitation in this matter was a local one, there was fear in my own constituency that this would happen to them, and I was dealing with my own constituency.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: In one sense the hon. Member did get some considerable long-term notice because this matter was raised in Committee upstairs and no doubt, as he is attending the discussions on this Bill on Report, he will have studied the proceedings of the Committee upstairs. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to this statement shortly before the hon. Member returned to the House. I am glad that the hon. Member has now explained to the House but I would still—
Mr. Braddock: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no notice at all was given to me.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I say again that I am grateful that the hon. Member has made his position clear to the House, but he should make his position equally clear to his own constituents. However, I willingly leave that matter to his own conscience.
To turn to the general aspect of the matter, it is perfectly clear that many
1772
hon. Members opposite were honestly in the position of misunderstanding the contents of this Bill. They were honestly misled by the speech of the Lord President. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Oh yes, and that was reflected even as lately as in the proceedings upstairs on the Committee stage. I think now that when they reconsider their position, having been misled so far, hon. Members opposite will find themselves in conscience bound to abstain from voting tonight on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Contacting agents for the brewers."] There is one other aspect of this matter with which I would ask the Home Secretary to deal. [Interruption.] When hon. Members opposite make so many remarks sitting down, it is rather difficult to understand what they mean. If they have anything to say worth listening to, I suggest that they take the trouble to get to their feet, when I would willingly give way, but unless they do that, they might hold their peace for a moment.
I would ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter. Let us assume for one moment that the Home Secretary is right. [Interruption.] I imagine that hon. Members opposite can understand plain English words occasionally. Let us assume for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that it is necessary, if this Bill is to have any effect, that somebody should have compulsory powers. I do not agree with it, but it is a line of argument. There are only two people who can have compulsory powers to acquire licensed premises. One would be the development corporation and the other would be the right hon. Gentleman himself. I would say that if his argument resides in the fact that compulsory powers must be held by someone, he is the last person who should have them and that a far better holder of those powers would be the development corporation.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not in the Amendment.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that we are arguing the merits or demerits of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there must be compulsory powers. If he says there must be compulsory powers, am I not entitled to suggest that, even though there must be compulsory powers, there are other

1773
people who might hold those powers equally well as himself.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that that Amendment is not on the Order Paper. It might be a good Amendment, but it is not on the Order Paper.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are moving to omit the very words which you yourself have just mentioned, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The position is perfectly clear. Under the Clause the Home Secretary has the power compulsorily to purchase certain lands. The Amendment seeks to substitute the word "agreement" for "compulsory purchase." That is the power of the Home Secretary. It has nothing whatever to do with any other body or Minister.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman himself has used the argument—I am sure I am not distorting his argument—that the Bill could not be made to function in this respect unless compulsory powers were available. We are seeking to omit "compulsory purchase" and to use the method of "agreement" only. Am I not entitled, therefore, to argue that, even if the Home Secretary is right, the compulsory powers need not be in his—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair. Mr. Orr-Ewing.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Am I not entitled to argue that others can better make use of those powers, and that the Bill as it stands, with compulsory powers to the Home Secretary, is not the only way of carrying out the duties which he says must be performed?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could do that if he had another Amendment on the Order Paper in
respect of which this was a paving Amendment. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper suggesting that any other body or person should have powers of compulsory purpose. The hon. Gentleman, therefre, cannot proceed with that argument.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are powers in the New Towns Act—in Clause 5, I think, in particular—which could be used compulsorily to acquire any premises within the area of a new town. It might well be that the New Towns Development Corporation might wish to acquire licensed premises by the use of compulsory powers. Although we should deplore such a procedure, at least those powers would have been used by a planning body responsible for the full planning and organisation of a new community. Had the right hon. Gentleman suggested such an alternative and insisted that compulsory powers were necessary, much though we detest those powers, it would not have been so obnoxious a proposal as the powers which he seeks to insert in the Clause in its present form.
The interested party—the party which will make use of the premises himself for the purpose of trading—should decide, first, whether that place should be acquired; second, whether he would acquire it by agreement or not; and third, if he wishes to be harsh, he will decide to acquire it compulsorily; and having acquired it, he will then make use of it for his own purposes. That sequence of events is grossly improper and I do not wish to see the Home Secretary of this country involved in a transaction of that sort. For that reason, I ask the House to support the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words 'compulsory purchases' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 103.

Division No. 135.]

AYES

19.6 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Beswick, F.

Albu, A. H.

Bacon, Miss A.

Bing, G. H. C.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Baird, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Balfour, A.

Blyton, W. R.

Alpass, J. H.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Boardman, H.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Barstow, P. G.

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Barton, C.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Attewell, H. C.

Battley, J. R.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Austin, H. Lewis

Bechervaise, A. E

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Awbery, S. S.

Benson, G.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Ayles, W. H.

Berry, H.

Brown, George (Belper)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Janner, B.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Carmichael, James

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jenkins, R. H.

Robens, A.

Cobb, F. A.

John. W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Cocks, F. S.

Johnston, Douglas

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Collindridge, F.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Collins, V. J.

Kenyon, C.

Rogers, G. H R.

Comyns, Dr. L.

King, E. M.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

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

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Sargood, R.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Kinley, J.

Segal, Dr. S.

Cove, W. G.

Lang, G.

Shackleton, E. A A

Crawley, A.

Lavers, S.

Sharp, Granville

Daggar, G.

Leslie, J. R

Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)

Daines, P.

Lever, N. H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)

Simmons, C. J.

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

Lindgren, G. S.

Skinnard, F. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lyne, A. W.

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

Deer, G.

McAdam, W.

Solley, L. J.

Delargy, H. J.

McAllister, G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Diamond, J.

McEntee, V. La T.

Seskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Dobbie, W.

McGhee, H. G.

Sparks, J. A.

Dodds, N. N.

McGovern, J.

Steele, T.

Donovan, T.

Mack, J. D.

Stubbs, A. E.

Driberg, T. E. N.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Sylvester, G. O.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McKinlay, A. S.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Dye, S.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

MacPherson, T. (Romford)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Timmons, J.

Ewart, R.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Titterington, M. F.

Fairhurst, F.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Farthing, W. J.

Messer, F.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

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

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Follick, M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R.

Walker, G. H.

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

Freeman, J. (Walford)

Moody, A. S.

Warbey, W. N.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Morley, R.

Watkins, T. E.

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Gilzean, A.

Moyle, A.

Weitzman, D.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Murray, J. D.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Gooch, E. G.

Nally, W.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Goodrich, H. E.

Naylor, T. E.

West, D. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

Grey, C. F.

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

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, 'W.)

Grierson, E.

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

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

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

O'Brien, T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Oldfield, W. H.

Wigg, George

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Oliver, G. H.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B

Gunter, R. J

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wilkes, L.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Harrison, J.

Pargiter, G. A.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Parker, J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Parkin, B. T.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pearson, A.

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

Hobson, C. R.

Pearl, T. F.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Popplewell, E.

Willis, E.

Horabin, T. L.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wise, Major F. J.

Houghton, A. L N. D.

Price, M. Philips

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hubbard, T.

Proctor, W. T.

Woods, G. S.

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

Pryde, D. J.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Randall, H. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Ranger, J.

Mr. Hannan and

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Rankin, J.

Mr. George Wallace.

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

Reeves, J.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Drewe, C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Byers, Frank

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Astor, Hon. M.

Challen, C.

Duthie, W. S.

Baldwin, A. E.

Channon, H.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Barlow, Sir J.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Bennett, Sir P.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Birch, Nigel

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

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Bower, N.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Davidson, Viscountess

Gage, C.

1776

1777

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. D.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Macpherson,, N. (Dumfries)

Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Grimston, R. V.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Harden,, J. R. E.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

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

Marples, A. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

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

Maude, J. C.

Touche, G. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mellor, Sir J.

Turton, R. H.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Howard, Hon. A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Hurd, A.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

Walker-Smith, D.

Keeling, E. H.

Nicholson, G.

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

Kendall, W. D.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Lancaster, Col, C. G.

Pickthorn, K.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Langford-Holt, J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Prescott, Stanley

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

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Mr. Studholme and

MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

McFarlane, C. S.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that before acquiring any land in a new town (whether by agreement or compulsorily) the Secretary of State shall consult with the development corporation."
By Clause 5, subsection (5) of the Bill, land belonging to the development corporation is excluded from the power of the Secretary of State of compulsory purchase. But it is only right that I should consult the corporation respecting any purchase of land in a new town, and this Amendment is moved in order that that shall be accomplished.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 11.
This is merely a drafting Amendment. The proviso which it is now proposed to delete from the Bill has been found not to be necessary.
Mr. Marlowe: May we have a little more explanation of this, because as it stands at the moment, before the Amendment, the Bill prevents the use of speedy acquisition procedure? The Amendment removes the whole of the proviso and that means, as the matter stands at the moment, that the speedy acquisition procedure can be used. Unless there is some safeguard elsewhere in the Bill which the hon. Gentleman did not explain, then we must oppose this Amendment. We always understood throughout the Committee stage that the speedy acquisition procedure was not to be used. Could we have some explanation why the change is to he made?
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Younger: I did not explain the detail because this is a purely technical drafting matter. There never was any intention that this power for the speedy acquisition of land should be included in the powers of the Secretary of State for this purpose. The proviso was included because, when the Bill was first drafted, it was thought that without the proviso the Secretary of State would have this power. On further examination—and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to confirm this if he refers to the original Sections of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946—it appears that in any event Clause 5 as it stands does not attract that power. That power was only available where the purchasing authority was a local authority, whereas in this case the purchasing authority is the Secretary of State. I hope that that is sufficient explanation. This is purely a drafting Amendment, and the intention originally set out in the proviso is not in any way affected.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think the House would be grateful if we could have a little more elaboration on this point. As I understand it, the suggestion is that Section 2 of the Act of 1946 applies only to local authorities whose powers of compulsory purchase orders must be confirmed. The Clause gives the Secretary of State the powers of the Minister of Transport under Section 1 (1, b) of the 1946 Act, but Section 2 (2)—that is the speedy acquisition Section—also gives the Minister of Transport powers of speedy acquisition. The point on which I think

1779
my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) wanted enlightenment is a point on which the House is entitled to be satisfied—whether or not the provisions of Section 2 (2) are attracted. In other words, does the Secretary of State get these powers of speedy acquisition which are conferred on the Minister of Transport under the 1946 Act if this proviso is omitted? I apologise to the House that I have only been able to give a very rapid glance at this matter, but my impression is that that may be so. I should like to have some assurance. Otherwise, I shall certainly most whole-heartedly oppose the introduction of these powers into this Bill as being wholly unnecessary and undesirable.
Mr. Younger: If I may make a further explanation, I think the House will appreciate that this is a highly technical lawyers' matter. It has been most carefully examined by the draftsman who originally thought that this proviso was necessary but is now satisfied that it is not. I am advised that the provision relating to the Minister of Transport under Section 2 (2) of the 1946 Act is definitely not attracted by the general provisions now made in Clause 5—in particular, I think that the lines at the top of page 5 which refer to paragraph (b) of Section 1 (1) do not attract the later provisions for the speedy acquisition under Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1946. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this has been very carefully looked at, and that it is strictly a matter of drafting. I am assured that its effect is as I have explained it to the House, and there certainly is not any other alternative intention.
Mr. Marlowe: This is clearly a difficulty caused by drafting by reference, and, while I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance as to its intention and effect, may I ask him if he will, between now and the proceedings in another place, consider bringing into the Bill that reference to which he has alluded, in order that it may make easier reading?
Sir William Darling: As this ought to apply to Scotland, perhaps the Secretary of State can help me. Does the deletion effected by this Amendment mean that his powers for the
1780
speedy acquisition of land will disappear, or that he has still got those speedy powers of acquisition? What happens as a result of this deletion? Will the right lion. Gentleman act more quickly or more slowly?
Mr. Woodburn: As the powers did not exist in the first draft, they still do not exist when this is taken out.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES IN SUSPENSE IN STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)
Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out "may and."
We had a discussion in Committee seeking to protect these licences in suspense during the period between a town becoming a State management area and the Secretary of State exercising his powers under Clauses 5 and 6 either to acquire the premises or to extinguish the licence. As the Clause stands, the Home Secretary can of his own volition extinguish a licence which is in suspense, and the object of the Amendment is to protect the licence so that it can only be extinguished if the licence holder applies for that purpose. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman said during the Committee stage that he would look into this point, and perhaps he would now let us know whether he has arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I add to what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend that we felt upstairs that the right hon. Gentleman had seen the justice and reason of this particular proposal, which is a little piece of machinery to deal with the period of suspense.
Mr. Ede: These words were of some value when we had the "adjacent and proximate areas" included in the Bill. They were struck out during the Committee stage, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary now to retain these words. I therefore recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 18.
This is a proposal to omit subsection (2) of Clause 8 because that is now embodied in a new Clause which was accepted in our earlier proceedings—(Provision of alternative accommodation where licensed premises acquired.)
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF LICENSING AUTHORITIES IN COUNTIES.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, to leave out "January in every year," and insert
"the month of October, November or December for the year beginning with the following first day of January."
There was some question in the Committee upstairs about the difficulty that may be created if we say that the licensing committee must be appointed in January. It might be more convenient, owing to the ordinary meetings of the justices, for the appointment to be made in one of the last months of the year rather than in the first month of the year. Since then I have had the opportunity of consulting both the Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks' Society on this matter. They think—and I agree with them—that the preferable way is that the appointment shall be made in one of the last three months of the year, and that the new committee shall come into being on 1st January.
I think that is far better than having a date in January for the meeting of the justices, and then finding that they might come into office in different areas on different days between the date of the meeting and the meeting of the Brewster Sessions with, sometimes, confusing results for all concerned. What we now say is that the meeting must be held in either October, November or December, and that the licensing committee will come into office after 1st January, and will hold office for the current year. We believe that will make the matter much clearer for all concerned, and, therefore, I commend the Amendment to the House.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: This matter was very strongly stressed upstairs
1782
by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lyne). I was looking round the House to see if he was present, but I do not think he is. In the discussion I supported his line of argument that there should be a longer period for these appointments to take place. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment.
Sir W. Darling: The Home Secretary indicated that it was to be 1st January. If this part of the Bill is applicable to Scotland, may I remind the Secretary of State for Scotland that 1st January is not a day on which magistrates, or, indeed, any other persons meet?
Mr. Ede: This Clause does not relate to Scotland—
Sir W. Darling: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Ede: —or, otherwise, we would have fixed it for Christmas Day, which I understand is a fast day in Scotland.
Sir W. Darling: What day, then, is it in Scotland if it is not 1st January? Would the Secretary of State tell us?
Mr. Woodburn: This does not interfere with the existing practice of the licensing courts in Scotland.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out from "three," to the end of line 37.
There is a little history in this matter also. There was an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd), on behalf of the Magistrates' Association, to reduce the maximum membership of the committee from 15 to 11. I had some consultation with him, and I thought, in conjunction with him, that the arrangement here would be rather better than the proposal put forward. However, I am bound to say that on examining the administrative effects of this, I am convinced that the suggestion that not more than seven members of the committee should sit for the hearing or determination of proceedings before the committee would be very awkward and difficult.
After all, in these matters, the justices are acting both administratively and judicially—administratively at one part of their proceedings and judicially at another — and. having reached an

1783
administrative decision, it might be very difficult if the 15, or whatever number there were present, had then to decide which of the seven should sit judicially. I think the practical difficulties are very great. Therefore, if these words are removed, it will be possible for all the members of the committee to act both administratively and judicially on the various issues that arise.
9.30 p.m.
Having said that, perhaps I may be allowed to express the hope that there will not be many occasions on which as many as 15 justices will think it necessary to sit judicially on these proceedings because there are obvious disadvantages of a large Bench attempting to act judicially in these matters. But I think that giving them complete freedom of action will enable many awkward issues in the magistrates' room to be avoided or perhaps to be settled more amicably than would be the case if a definite limit had been put in the Bill. For those reasons I suggest that these words should be deleted from the subsection.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made out his case as to the difficulties which would beset the intention to secure the smaller number. I agree with him, and I hope it may go out from the House as a whole that there is to be found in both our speeches encouragement for licensing justices that they will avoid, if possible, over-large Benches in dealing with these matters.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF LICENSING AUTHORITIES IN COUNTY BOROUGHS AND CITY OF LONDON.)
Amendment made: In page 9, line 16, leave out second "subsection," and insert "Section."—[Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 9, line 24 to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 25, and to insert:
"or a borough confirming and compensation committee shall be appointed in the month of October, November or December for the year beginning with the following first day of January."
This Amendment corresponds with the one which was moved by my right hon. Friend a few moments ago with regard to the appointing of divisional licensing
1784
committees. This is the same point concerning the compensation committees and the licensing committees in county boroughs and it refers to appointments in the months of October, November, and December.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 30.
This, again, is an Amendment which corresponds with the one recently moved by my right hon. Friend relating to the maximum of seven justices. It applies to the county borough licensing committees in this instance.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES.)
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, to leave out from the beginning to "a," in line 2, in page 12, and to insert "he is."
This Amendment relates to the disqualification of a licensing justice and those hon. Members who were Members of the Standing Committee will remember that we had some discussion upon it. It is rather a difficult point because, if I may put it quite broadly, the scheme of the Bill is to say that if the licensing justice has any share, even to the smallest number of shares, in a company which is dealing with brewing or cognate matters to anything except a very small extent then he is disqualified. When we were considering the matter in Committee we thought that one might also look at the small extent of the shareholding, that if someone had only one share or five shares or 10 shares or 20 shares in a company of 100,000 shares dealing with brewing that did not seem to preserve him from disqualification.
We received a broadside on our flank from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who said that if. we once considered the small extent of the shareholding, we might have to consider the whole question of the financial position of the various justices. Therefore, we are left in what is a rather unsatisfactory position, but still one which we have to investigate. I think I am expressing the view of everyone on the Committee when I say that we hoped the Home Secretary would have a further

1785
look at our problem and would let us know the result of his further look at this stage of the Bill. It is for that reason, so that the House should know the result of his examination and reflection, that I move the Amendment.
Mr. Ede: This is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, a very difficult matter to resolve. One does not wish to exclude from the bench any person whose advice would be of assistance to the bench, and who has taken the oath to discharge his duties as a justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. In dealing with the extent to which a man's interest in this trade may influence his decisions, it is' very difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule. It has, I think, defied the wisdom of successive Parliaments that have attempted to deal with this matter. I approached the matter in all humility myself. The Amendment would make the Clause run thus:
"… unless the justices appointing him are satisfied that he is a proper person to be a member of such a committee."
I cannot help thinking that words like that would put a very invidious task on the other members of the committee, for they would give them no guidance as to the test which they ought to apply. This is a matter on which the justices ought to have some guidance from the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a similar Amendment during the Eleventh Sitting of the Committee upstairs, and he then expressed the view that the extent of the shareholding should also be taken into account. As he has just said, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) suggested that a test based on the extent of the shareholding would really need to be supplemented by a comparison with the other means of the justice. For instance, a man might have a comparatively small holding in one of the companies, and this would make his interest subject to review; but that might be a very small holding in a small income; and what would be a matter that would not influence one man very much might influence another man very considerably. Therefore, it is quite clear that anyone's mathematical efforts would have to be pretty complicated and would have to have regard to each justice who might be concerned. I think it might give rise
1786
to very nice and difficult discussions in the justices' room. A man with a very substantial income who has, perhaps, let us say, £50 coming in from the licensed trade quite clearly would have only a small part of his income concerned. Let us assume a man had only a couple of hundred pounds of his own and £50 came from the trade. One could hardly put the two men in the same category.
Again, in order to justify a man sitting he might be asked to disclose particulars with regard to his own private income other than an income from the trade, and he might not care to discuss that with his colleagues even in the justices' room. Personal difficulties of that kind might arise. We have therefore come to the conclusion, after very carefully examining it—and I would assure the House that in all the matters on this Bill I have given very close personal attention to the issues—that the tests and guidance that we have applied in the Bill are the best that can be offered. They meet the main practical difficulties which have arisen, and reduce to a minimum the extent to which the justices will be called upon to disclose their private affairs.
I have had a conference with the Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks Society, and the representatives of both those bodies were unanimous, after examining all the possible alternatives, in thinking that the wise course was to follow the line that we had taken in the Bill. Therefore, I am bound after consulting them, to advise the House to let the Bill remain as it stands. I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who spoke on this matter in Committee and who have since given serious thought to it. It is one of those delicate matters where it is necessary to give some guidance. Perhaps one cannot make the guidance as explicit as one would desire, but we can rely on the good sense of the magistrates when they are meeting in their own room to select the licensing committee to follow the guidance which the House gives them.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am, of course, personally interested in this matter, and I should declare it to the House. I confess I feel a little touchy about it. What we are aiming at in this

1787
Bill is to get justices who are impartial, honest and incorruptible people. I cannot see that the proportion of a man's shareholding in any of these nefarious undertakings really affects his corruptibility or his incorruptibility. As I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is to give fellow justices wider scope in the exercise of their own personal judgment whenever someone is suitable for this sort of post. I believe that a precise mathematical computation of a person's interest in an undertaking is not necessarily a guide to his corruptibility or incorruptibility. I should like to see my right hon. Friend persist in this Amendment, because I believe fellow justices are far better able to judge of one of their colleague's corruptibility or incorruptibility than anyone else can be. If one has confidence in the commission of the peace and in a bench they should be left with the widest possible discretion. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not withdraw this Amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Dr. Segal: I cannot for the life of me see how the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) can possibly insist on this Amendment, seeing that it is in these terms:
"To leave out from the beginning, to 'a, in line 2,"
and in view of the further fact that the word "a" occurs twice in line 2. Is it not fair to ask the Opposition whether they refer to the first word "a" or to the second word "a"? If it refers to the second word "a," the Amendment makes sheer nonsense.
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the House will give me leave to speak for a very short time I should like to say one word, in deference to what has been said by my hon. Friends. I should like to point out that, like the Home Secretary, we have considered the matter very carefully. The difficulty I see is that this is not a question of confidence in the magistrates. That is why I have risen to speak again. It is a question of giving them an objective test. What one wants to avoid is having dispute or argument in the magistrates' room which can only be resolved on a subjective test, on the view of one's fellow magistrates. That would go against the harmonious working of the
1788
bench and the general administration of licensing work.
Therefore we have had to face an objective test. The Government suggested the activity of the company. We thought that one might add to that, or consider as well as that, the extent of the shareholding. One of my hon. Friends raised a difficulty there, when he said that once we considered the extent of the shareholding we should have to consider the extent of the income of which it is a part. I have given fresh consideration to the matter and I regretfully am of the opinion that we cannot persist in our suggestion leaving the matter as a subjective test. We must try to give guidance to magistrates on the lines that the Secretary of State has suggested. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20.—(PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN ARES FOR PREMISES WHERE MEALS, MUSIC AND DANCING PROVIDED.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 12, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
"(a) that the premises are a hotel or restaurant to which this section applies."
This is the first of a set of Amendments relating to Clause 20, and which are consequential upon the new Clause that we have adopted this afternoon. They make the necessary corrections in Clause 20 to enable it to fit into the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 33, leave out "habitually."
In page 12, line 37, at end, insert:
"(hereinafter referred to as a 'special hours certificate')."
In page 12, line 39, at the end, insert:
"and the provisions of section (Later permitted hours where special hours certificate in force) of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(2) The hotels and restaurants to which this section applies are—

(a) premises for which the excise licence for the time being in force is a licence the duty in respect of which is the reduced duty payable under section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910;

(b) premises for which the excise licence for the time being in force is a licence granted in pursuance of regulations under subsection (5) of the said section forty-five (which relates to the granting of licences on

1789
the provisional payment of reduced duty in the case of new hotels and restaurants);

(c) premises structurally adapted and bona fide used as mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section forty-five, being premises as to which the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied that no application under the said section forty-five has been made in respect of the period for which the excise licence for the time being in force was granted but that if such an application had been made such a licence could properly have been granted as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(3) An application for a certificate of the Secretary of State under paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall be made in such form, and accompanied by such evidence, as may be prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of State.
(4) Where a special hours certificate has been granted in respect of premises, or a part of premises, in respect of which the Secretary of State has granted a certificate under the said paragraph (c), and has not been revoked, the holder of the licence shall at such time in each subsequent year as may be so prescribed make a return to the Secretary of State, in such form and accompanied by such evidence as may be so prescribed, of the receipts in the preceding year from the sale of intoxicating liquor and of the total receipts in that year from the business of all descriptions carried on by him in the premises; and if

(a) the return required by this subsection is not duly made, or

(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied, by any such return, that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor in the preceding year were less in the case of a restaurant than three-fifths, and in the case of any other premises than one-half, of the said total receipts,

the Secretary of State may give notice to the holder of the licence that the Secretary of State is not satisfied as aforesaid.
In this subsection the expression 'year' means a period of twelve months ending with the thirty-first day of March."
In page 13, line 1,leave out from beginning, to end of line 23, on page 14.
In page 14, line 25, leave out from "them," to "at," in line 26.
In page 14, line 28, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 33.—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause 21.—(PROHIBITION OF CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OUTSIDE PERMITTED HOURS AT PARTIES ORGANISED FOR GAIN.)
Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move, in page 16, line 12, at the end, to add:
(8) This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty.
We have today passed some new Clauses which will enable registered
1790
clubs to enjoy certain advantages. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the existing clubs to make whatever structural alterations may be demanded by the London County Council in order to comply with the requirements set out in the Bill. If an Amendment of this nature were not included, it would mean that these businesses would be out of action for a considerable time, and I am sure that it is not the intention of the Home Secretary or the House that they should be so treated. It may well be that it would not be the desire of the House that the advantages conferred upon hotels and restaurants should be delayed for that period of time. If in those circumstances the Home Secretary felt that the Amendment ought to apply only in respect of Clause 21, that would be agreeable to me.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend. With the tourist season just coming on, it is important that people coming to this country should be able to go to clubs if they so desire. We read this morning with great distress that exports were down £22 million last month. We must now make every effort we can to recoup some of those deficiences in the form of tourist traffic and bring good dollars to the country. I hope the Home Secretary will see fit to agree to the Amendment.
Mr. Ede: I advise the House to accept this Amendment which remedies an omission from the Clause which ought not to have occurred.
Mr. C. Williams: May I, as I always am, be perfectly fair to the Home Secretary and congratulate him on the way in which he has accepted the Amendment. I say so because I happen to represent the most important of all the health resorts in the world. I feel that it is one which Socialist hon. Members will always visit whenever they get the chance, and I am sure they will all join with me in rejoicing that the Home Secretary has yielded to the pressure of the Conservative Party and done this one thing which is really sensible. I congratulate the Home Secretary most sincerely and hope that he will do something sensible again.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: Am I right in saying that this does not in any way affect the working of Clause 20?
Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Buck-low (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned that it might. I shall have it examined and if it does interfere, I gather that in view of what the hon. Member said there will be no opposition to it being made clear that it is not intended to apply to Clause 20.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(RESTRICTION OF RETAIL SALES BY SPIRIT OR WINE DEALERS WITHOUT JUSTICES' LICENCE.)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, to leave out "or."
This and the following Amendment—in line 43, at end, insert:
"or
(e) for the purposes of conducting a bona fide wine and spirit business supplying customers regularly throughout the year"—
fall together and, subject to your Ruling Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be convenient to discuss the two together.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner) indicated assent.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The object of these two Amendments is to safeguard the position of persons who wish to start a wine shop or to come as new entrants into the wine trade. Under the present law, it is possible to open a wine shop simply by taking out an excise licence, paying the necessary duties to the Ex- chequer, and starting business. As the present Clause of the Bill stands, it will be necessary for such persons in future to apply to the licensing justices and obtain an off-licence before they will be permitted to start a wine shop.
The difficulty which it seems to me will follow from that procedure is this: As the Home Secretary knows, applications to the licensing justices are largely, if not mainly, based on consumer need. One of the main facts which has to be established in evidence to satisfy the licensing justices is that consumer need exists. Generally, in starting a new wine shop, it would not be possible to prove that. After all, the object of starting a shop is to work up a custom, and in 99 cases out of 100 the new entrants to the wine trade would not be able to establish
1792
consumer need. It seems to me to follow that, as the Clause now stands, new entrants to the wine business will be virtually excluded. No difficulty arises with respect to the existing wine firms who are covered by the Clause, but the effect of the Clause is largely to produce a state of affairs in which the wine business will become largely a closed shop. People with experience of this business know that in some respects it resembles a profession—the study of wine, its keeping qualities, its various vintages, and so on, is a complicated professional business—
Air-Commodore Harvey: Algerian?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —as those who, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), habitually drink Algerian will one day learn. It seems to me quite wrong in this sphere of business, verging upon a profession, that there should be this exclusion. As I understand it, the object of the prohibition, is the laudable object of excluding those mushroom shops which grow up in the West End of London shortly before Christmas, when it is believed that people will purchase almost anything, including, in the case of my hon. and gallant Friend, Algerian wine—although the difficulties of the Minister of Food in disposing of his stocks of Algerian wine indicate that in that respect, as in so many others, my hon. and gallant Friend is unique.
There is a point of substance here for the future. There is no doubt at all that if the Clause goes through in its present form new entrants to this interesting and important business will largely be excluded and, generally speaking, will be unable to obtain a justices' licence because they will be unable to establish consumer need. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept this Amendment, he would still be able to eliminate these temporary shops in London because it covers only the case of those who are prepared to operate their businesses throughout the year, and he will still keep this an open trade in which young and enterprising people can build up a business. There seems to be no reason why they should be denied that opportunity. There is, indeed, on general principles every reason why they should be permitted. It is with the hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself

1793
had considerable experience in the control and upbringing of the young, will not bar one way to youthful ambition that I move the Amendment.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment. I have been looking at the proceedings upstairs when this matter was debated earlier, and I regret to find that a certain acrimony broke out in the Committee owing to some observations of the Under-Secretary. However, this evening calmness has prevailed and we can discuss this matter in a more detached fashion. At the time there was a Debate of some length. I see that we went into the question of what are generally known as grocers' licences, and I think it was on that occasion that the Home Secretary— who became reminiscent from time to time during this rather lengthy Committee stage—told us of some unhappy experiences he had when chastised by his father for removing dust from bottles which were said to be of a valuable and ancient vintage, quite opposed to the activities of the Minister of Food in these times. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has placed this matter before the House again tonight. The period for reflection which has passed since our Debate upstairs may well have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to alter his mind, and I hope that, as he has done earlier today on more than one occasion, he will be able to accept our proposal.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Marlowe: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. As the Clause stands, a shop which held an excise licence on 15th November, 1948, and has continued to hold an excise licence from that date until an application is made to the justices, as will be required to be done when the Bill becomes law, is safeguarded to this extent; that such an application is treated as a renewal, which means that the proof of consumer need to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred is not required. Therefore, virtually anybody who has been the possessor of an excise licence between the relevant dates will automatically get the justices' licence enabling him to carry on a wine shop. But people who were not
1794
operating such a business on 15th November, 1948, will be virtually precluded from entering the business. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this position, because it stultifies the development of the trade at that point.
As the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware, the proof of consumer need for a retail shop is almost impossible to establish. It is quite different from the proof of consumer need for a justices licence for a public house, which is nearly always a geographical matter. Where there are a certain number of houses it is generally assumed that a certain number of licences are required to satisfy what is likely to be the reasonable demand in that area. A retail shop, however, is altogether different. A man who owns a retail shop may build up a goodwill attached to the shop which has no relation whatever to its geographical position. There are wine shops, for instance, in St. James' Street, Pall Mall or thereabouts who sell their wines in many different parts of England and the world. The mere fact that they are situated at that address has nothing to do with consumer need in that locality. That is, perhaps, an extreme example; but it is possible, similarly for a wine shop to be situated in one part of any town yet do a great amount of its business in an entirely different part of that town.
It would be quite hopeless for a new applicant to apply to the justices and say, "I do not have an excise licence, therefore I cannot be treated as a renewal; but I am trying to build up a business and I expect to be able to sell my wine." The justices would ask, "Where?" The applicant could only answer, "I hope by my own private enterprise to establish a thriving business." He would be told that that was not proof of consumer need, and that would be the end of his application.
Unless it is amended, the Clause will have the effect of favouring the big, established businesses which have branches in many parts of the country; they will be unaffected because they are already in possession of an excise licence. The new entrant, however, will be excluded. If the Clause is retained in its present form, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be giving almost a monopolistic advantage to those already

1795
in the trade. I hope that he does not consider that that is a proper thing to do and that he will accept the Amendment in order to encourage new blood to enter the trade.
Mr. J. Hudson: I hope the Home Secretary is not going to yield to the blandishments of the wine-bibbers from the other side of the House. They know all about this sort of thing and I am a mere babe in the matter, but I should like hon. Members opposite to call to mind that the establishment of a consumer need where alcoholic beverages are concerned is something entirely different from the establishment of consumer need in any other sort of commodity. The whole of the licensing laws and all we have tried to do in regard to what is known as the drink problem shows that we should be very thankful for anywhere where there is not a consumer need and that we should not try to create such a consumer need for the purpose of someone making a profit out of it. I submit that every argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has been based on the right of the private trader further to stimulate in the ways of wastefulness the people of this country, who can very well be saved from further expenditure in addition to the tremendous number of millions already spent on this entirely useless article.
Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member said that he is a babe in this matter, but he is not such a babe as not to realise that the point we have made is a good one and he wants to see the Amendment rejected in order to prevent the extension of wine shops.
Mr. Ede: This Clause has been provided to deal with a loophole which has been discovered by certain interested parties in Section 111 (1) of the Licensing Consolidation Act of 1910 where it was possible to set up wine and spirits shops for off consumption under an excise licence for which a justices' licence was not required. The object of that Section was to enable wholesalers to sell wines and spirits incidentally by retail. How in fact it has worked out is that by getting a wholesaler's licence people have been
1796
able to deal entirely in retail without any genuine wholesale trade at all, and a further remarkable result occurred that one wholesale licence enabled the holder to obtain retail licences in any number of parishes.
The Royal Commission on Licensing recommended that this exemption in Section 111 (1) should be confined to its original purpose and we are carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission here. One is not encouraged to safeguard people who may have innocently embarked on this trade without realising they were evading the law when one finds that the concession is used as an argument for continuing the use of the law which has been condemned by the Royal Commission on Licensing and which in fact removes from the licensing justices the means of the control which this House intended there should be over the facilities for the sale of wines and spirits in other areas.
The case for the Clause as drafted has existed for a very long time. It was never the intention of Parliament that these rights should be acquired in the way in which they have been acquired, and I think we have behaved very generously with the people who have the vested interest, in accepting them as the existing licence holders and not insisting on them making applications for new licences.
So far as the future is concerned, the evidence of the past is not that ambitious young men who, at an early age, have acquired a sensitive palate for the tasting of wine, embark on this business. As a matter of fact, this kind of business was the principal supplier of the bottle parties. When the bottle party representatives came to see me they started off by talking as if they were independent of bottle shops. But before the afternoon ended the half dozen gentlemen who came to see me owned up that each of them was in fact connected with one of these shops and if one went to his party he expected one to buy at his shop and no other. They made the most elaborate arrangements to ensure that that process was made as easy as possible for the visitor to the party.
There is no case for recognising and legalising for the future this breach which has occurred in the law. It is right that this matter should be brought under the jurisdiction of the licensing justices, and

1797
it was only with very considerable hesitation that I included in the Clause the permission which gives to the existing shop the right to be regarded as an existing and not as a new licence on the first occasion. I think I have met any grievance that the present vested interest may have by treating them in that way, and I do not think the House would be well advised to extend a provision which has all along been a flagrant evasion of the intention of Parliament.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this? Has he applied his mind to the difficulty facing genuine applicants in establishing consumer need so long as under the present law the need to establish that consumer need exists? Has he applied his mind to that difficulty, since it seems possible that the point he has in mind and the point I have in mind could both be dealt with if there could be an application to the justices without the need to establish consumer need?
Mr. Ede: There must be some test which the justices have to apply, and normally that must be the test which is now applied to all forms of licences when an application is made for them. If it is a grocer's licence, an on-licence, or an off-licence, or if it is an application to extend a beer licence to cover wines and spirits, the test is: does the locality need it? I can see no reason for applying a different standard and a different test to this particular trade.
Mr. Nicholson: I do not think the Home Secretary has addressed himself to the point at issue. As I understand it, the point at issue is not the closure of these bottle shops and other detestable institutions which are completely bogus. I am sure the public as a whole, and the trade as a whole, is at one with the right hon. Gentleman in his determination to suppress them. But the point at issue is whether or not it shall be possible for people wishing to go into the genuine wine business to establish a business that may trade not only all over London, but all over Britain, without establishing a definite consumer need in the region where their headquarters lie. I may be misunderstanding the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish he would set my mind at rest in that respect.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Ede: If it is a genuine wholesale business, Section 111 will continue to apply to it. What we object to is the pretext of taking out a wholesaler's licence enabling a person to conduct a retail business with no wholesale trade at all.
Mr. Nicholson: With permission of the House I should like to add that sometimes a wholesale business has, as a sort of adjunct, a retail business which is part of it. I could give concrete examples to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards. It is rather hard luck on them if they are not able to start up unless they can prove a mythical local consumer's need.
Mr. C. Williams: I do not think that anyone on this side of the House wants any abuse which has gone on under Section 111 to continue in future. Many of us feel that there is a great difficulty in new people starting up a genuine wholesale business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said, it may be at times that one must have some local connection and build-up, but we do not want in any way to help the bottle party or to break the original Act. We feel that the law as it stands is setting up what we might call a closed shop in the wine trade. We want to make it possible for ordinary people, who desire in every way to keep within the law, to set up in the wholesale business. I do not think that the Home Secretary has quite seized that point. I hope that at some further stage in the Bill the matter will be considered to see whether it is possible to insert a provision which will allow new people to start up in business.
Mr. Grimston: I do not think that the present position is satisfactory, as I will endeavour to indicate by giving an example. We all agree that we want to stop the mushroom bottle shop, and bogus ventures of that kind. We are engaged in trying to find export business wherever we can. If we get someone who has some connections abroad who wishes to start up a wine business for the export market—not necessarily wholesale but retail—as matters stand at present he cannot do that. He cannot prove that there is consumer need in the locality where he

1799
wishes to set up business. Therefore, he cannot get a licence to create what might be a new export business. I think the House will agree that it is a wrong situation. Perhaps the Home Secretary could tell me whether what I say is correct. As he does not deny it, I think I must be right.
Mr. Ede: I cannot imagine that an export business will be conducted on the basis of single bottles. I should have thought that, by its very nature, an export business must be a wholesale business.
Mr. Grimston: Not necessarily. I do not believe that to be so at all. That rather confirms my fear that in correcting an evil this is going too far and it may possibly suppress new export business. I do not think that we ought to let this matter pass in the absence of an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider the matter from that point of view. We ought not to let the matter rest where it is.
Mr. Peter Roberts: After having listened to the Debate, it seems to me that the Government are doing again what they have done so often. In order to stop one or two people doing something illegal or immoral, they are putting restrictions upon the whole community. If the Government cannot find some method whereby they can stop the obvious defects without curtailing our ordinary wine and spirit retail and export business, I think they should think again.
Mr. Ede: With the consent of the House, I would draw attention to the fact that Clause 25, in page 18, line 41, contains an exemption for deliveries outside Great Britain, so that whether the trade is wholesale or retail, the prohibition on starting a business does not apply to it.
Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 99.

Division No. 136.]

AYES

[10.22 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Hobson, C. R.

Albu, A. H.

Davies, S. C. (Merthyr)

Holman, P.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Deer, G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Delargy, H. J.

Horabin, T. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Diamond, J.

Hubbard, T.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Dodds, N. N

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

Attewell, H. C.

Donovan, T.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Awbery, S. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ayles, W. H

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Dumpleton, C. W.

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

Bacon, Miss A

Dye, S.

Janner, B.

Baird, J,

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Balfour, A.

Edwards, Rt. Won. N. (Caerphilly)

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Jenkins, R. H.

Barstow, P. G.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

John, W.

Barton, C.

Ewart, R.

Johnston, Douglas

Bechervaise, A E

Fairhurst, F.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Benson, G.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Kenyon, C.

Beswick, F.

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

King, E. M.

Bing, G. H. C

Follick, M.

Kinley, J.

Binns, J.

Foot, M. M

Lang, G.

Blackburn, A. R

Forman, J. C.

Lavers, S.

Blenkinsop, A.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Lever, N. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Boardman, H.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Gibson, C. W.

Lindgren, G. S

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gilzean, A.

Lipson, D. L.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Lyne, A. W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Gooch, E. G

McAdam, W.

Brown, George (Belper)

Greenwood, A W. J (Heywood)

McAllister, G.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Grey, C. F.

McEntee, V. La T

Burden, T. W.

Grierson, E.

McGhee, H. G

Carmichael, James

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

McGovern, J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Gunter, R. J.

Mack, J. D.

Cobb, F A.

Gu y, W. H.

McKinlay, A. S.

Cullindridge, F

Hale, Leslie

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Collins, V J.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvii

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Harrison, J.

Mainwaring, W. H

Crawley, A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Crossman, R. H S

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Daggar, G.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Herbison, Miss M.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

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

Hewitson, Capt. M

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Rankin, J.

Titterington, M F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Reeves, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Mitchison, G. R.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Monslow, W.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Morley, R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Warbey, W. N.

Moyle, A.

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Watkins, T. E.

Murray, J. D

Rogers, G. H. R.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Nally, W.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Weitzman, D.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Sargood, R.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

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

Segal, Dr. S.

West, D. G.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

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

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

Sharp, Granville

White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

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

O'Brien, T.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Oldfield, W. H

Simmons, C. J.

Wigg, George

Orbach, M.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Wilkes, L.

Palmer, A. M. F.

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

Wilkins, W. A

Pargiter, G. A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Parker, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frans

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Parkin, B. T.

Sparks, J. A.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Steele, T.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Pearson, A.

Stubbs, A. E.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S)

Peart, T. F.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Willis, E.

Price, M. Philips

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wise, Major F. J.

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Pryde, D. J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Woods, G. S.

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Randall, H. E.

Thurtle, Ernest

Ranger, J.

Timmons, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Harden, J. R. E.

Nicholson, G.

Astor, Hon. M.

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

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Baldwin, A. E

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Odey, G. W

Barlow, Sir J.

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

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Bossom, A. C.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prescott, Stanley

Bower, N.

Hope, Lord J.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesail)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hurd, A.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

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

Ropner, Col. L.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Sanderson, Sir F.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Scott, Lord W.

Chatters, C.

Kendall, W. D.

Shepherd, S. (Newark)

Channon, H.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Spence, H. R.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Langford-Holt, J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

Teeling, William

Davidson, Viscountess

McCallum, Maj. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Digby, Simon Wingfield

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

McFarlane, C. S.

Touche, G. C.

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Turton, R. H.

Drewe, C.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Wane, W. M. F.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Duthie, W. S.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Walker-Smith, D.

Eccles, D. M.

Manningham-Buller, R. F

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

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Marlowe, A. A. H

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M

Maude, J. C.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gage, C.

Mellor, Sir J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

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

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Commander Agnew and

Mr. Studholme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 36.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND CITATION.)
10.30 p.m.
Amendment made: In page 25, line 15, after "Act," insert:
"except section (Persons under eighteen not to be employed in bars) thereof."—[Mr. Younger.]

New Schedule.—(CERTIFICATION OF CLUB PREMISES FOR MUSIC AND DANCING.)
1. Where, on the application of the secretary of a registered club, the London County Council are satisfied as respects any premises of the club situated as mentioned in subsection (1) of section (Special hours certificates for certain clubs) that the premises (whether or not they are kept or intended to be kept

1803
for public dancing, music or other public entertainment of the like kind) in all other respects fulfil the Council's requirements for the grant of a music and dancing licence, the Council may grant a certificate under this Schedule as respects the premises.
2. A certificate under this Schedule may be granted on such terms, and subject to such conditions or restrictions, as the Council may think fit and subject to the following provision of this Schedule, shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein.
3. A certificate granted under this Schedule may from time to time be renewed by the London County Council on the application of the secretary of the club; and the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply to the renewal of such certificates as they apply to the grant thereof.
4. Where a certificate under this Schedule as respects a club has been granted or renewed subject to any condition or restriction, the condition or restriction may be waived or modified by the London County Council on the application of the secretary of the club.
5. If while a certificate is in force under this Schedule it appears to the London County Council—

(a) that any condition or restriction subject to which the certificate was granted or last renewed, as the case may be, has not been complied with or, in the case of a condition or restriction which has been modified under the last foregoing paragraph, that the condition or restriction as so modified has not been complied with, and

(b) that the condition or restriction has not been waived under the last foregoing paragraph,

the Council may, after giving to the secretary of the club not less than seven days' notice that the Council are considering revoking the certificate, specifying the ground for the revocation thereof, and after affording to the secretary an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Council for the purpose, revoke the certificate.—[Mr. Ede.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This Schedule arises out of the new Clause we discussed earlier this afternoon. I had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the representatives of the Hoteliers and Restaurateurs Association, with the proprietors of the clubs and with the L.C.C. I am glad to say that the persons who will be affected are willing to accept these very necessary requirements and that the L.C.C. are willing to accept the certification of the club premises on the ground of safety where they are being used for public music and dancing.
Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

First Schedule.—(STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.)
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 27, line 1, to leave out from "provision," to the end of line 4, and to insert:
"of entertainment or recreation at premises in a State management district provided by the Secretary of State for the sale of intoxicating liquor, meals or refreshments."
There was some anxiety in Committee that under the Schedule as it now stands it might be possible for the Secretary of State to go in for large-scale forms of entertainment, such as the provision of cinemas, merely because alcoholic liquor was sold on the premises. This part of the Schedule has been redrafted so as to make it clear that this form of entertainment can only be provided at premises themselves provided for the sale of liquor, meals and refreshments. It will permit the reasonable provision of incidental entertainment at premises whose primary functions are those which I have mentioned.
Mr. Grimston: I think this meets the point we raised in Committee, that the Secretary of State should not be able to use the sale of liquor as a peg on which to hang a far larger enterprise. I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 7, after "and," insert:
",in the Carlisle district specified in Part I of this Schedule."—[Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, at the end, to insert:
"(2) The Secretary of State may by order declare that, during such period as may be specified in the order, the last foregoing subparagraph shall have effect as if the words in the Carlisle district specified in Part I of this Schedule' were omitted.
(3) The power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament."
I think I ought to explain this Amendment to the House. In Standing Committee I promised to consider a proposal that, while I should be still able to continue to manufacture mineral water at Carlisle, I should not start a new factory for this purpose elsewhere except as the result of an order laid before Parliament. This Amendment gives effect to that promise, and I make it clear that, except

1805
by a Statutory Instrument subject to annulment by Resolution of either House of Parliament, I cannot start a mineral water factory in any other part of the country.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: As I raised this matter in Committee upstairs, may I take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for making this gesture. The discussion earlier ranged round the right of the Minister to set up State breweries, and the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that unless there was a boycott of State public houses he did not propose to utilise these powers. We then raised the question of mineral water manufacturers, when he said that he had had conversations with their representatives and in consequence was prepared to put this machinery into operation whereby he retained his rights in Carlisle, but would only set up mineral water factories elsewhere by Resolution of this House. He added that, of course, he would safeguard himself in the matter of a boycott, as in the case of a boycott by breweries.
There is one point that I put to the right hon. Gentleman upstairs and which I should like to repeat now. In Carlisle there was a brewery, with an ancillary which manufactured mineral waters, which was taken over under the 1921 Act for the purposes of convenience. I asked in Committee whether, in the event of a similar case elsewhere, should there be a brewery with a mineral water ancillary which boycotted his public houses, he would realise that that is no reason for descending with all the force of his machinery on mineral water manufacturers as a whole; that merely because a brewery with ancillary mineral water manufacture engaged in a boycott, he would not regard that as a reason for his wrath descending upon mineral water manufacturers as a whole provided they acted reasonably regarding State public houses. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me some information on that point.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the procedure for the soft drinks side of the matter laid down in the Amendment is as satisfactory as possible, but it does serve to underline the curious discrimination in which the right hon. Gentleman is indulging. He takes power to brew and to make soft drinks, and in the latter
1806
case says he will not do it save by Statutory Instrument, a rather curious method of manufacture; but he says he will not indulge in this unless he lays before the House a Statutory Instrument. I think the House is entitled to some answer why this curious discrimination is made.
Mr. Ede: May I say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), that I never descend in wrath upon anyone, and if I did have a dispute with a brewery company which had an ancillary mineral water undertaking, I should proceed about the matter in the utmost calmness, and remember the pledges which I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to other hon. Members of this House. It might be necessary to take over that mineral water business in conjunction with acquisition of the brewery, but I would not regard that—and I am quite sure that no successor of mine would regard it—as a reason for nationalising the mineral water industry as a whole, or for taking steps to compete with it. I gladly give that assurance.
It is a curious thing that the Opposition have never apparently realised the difference between a brewer and a soft drinks manufacturer. Having met both of them, during my negotiations in connection with this Bill, I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that they are quite easily recognisable apart. The power of a brewery company in a particular area is very much greater, in my opinion, if it were decided by that company to bring a State management scheme to a standstill than is the power of a mineral water manufacturer. In the later stages of our negotiations, the brewery companies have met me in a way which indicated that they realised that we had moved a great deal since 1908, and that the power of the trade in many matters is not as great as it was then. In my view, it is still so great that a Secretary of State in the future may need to have the opportunity of acting very quickly if he should be threatened with a boycott. It would be part of his administrative duty to deal with it. It is not the kind of thing that can be done in a corner, and if it were felt that he was acting unjustly or oppressively, he would always be accountable to this House.

1807
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) should know that so far the salary of the Home Secretary has not been challenged.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not inviting that challenge, but will he not agree that the challenge to his action by a Motion to annul a Statutory Instrument is a much more expeditious method of Parliamentary control than persuading the Lord President of the Council to provide time to move a Motion to reduce the Home Secretary's salary?
Mr. Ede: I would not think so. The hon. Gentleman himself is the only member of the Opposition in this Parliament who has succeeded in a Prayer, and that was a Prayer against myself, which I commended to the powers who in this House answer Prayers. Therefore, as far as he and I are concerned, I am quite sure there is no feeling that I shall be oppressive or dogmatic on these occasions. I believe that the power of the House over administrative action of Ministers ought never to be belittled, and I am quite certain that that is a more effective answer to an oppressive action by a Minister. We must presume that an action is held by the Opposition to be oppressive if there is a Motion to annul the order. Sometimes it is impossible to amend an instrument which is not wholly condemned, whereas in the other case the charge of discrimination can be made and the appropriate remedy applied at the point where it should be applied.
Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman has never given any satisfactory explanation of the distinction between the powers he takes with regard to the soft drinks industry and the brewing industry. I do not think that the answer he has made now is any more satisfactory than those which he gave before. The right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that he must safeguard himself against being held up by the brewing industry. First, that is an unjustifiable charge, because the industry has never given any indication that it intends to hold up the right hon. Gentleman. Secondly, the way he deals with this is to say that if they wish to do such a thing he must have power to act in order to be able to have his own brewery and supply his own public houses.
1808
He cannot really believe that he could complete a brewery, start producing beer and supplying the public houses quicker than he could lay a Statutory Instrument on the Table of this House. There seems to be something more sinister behind it. This is a threat of blackmail which is to be kept hanging over the brewing industry.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Grimston: I cannot let the Home Secretary get away with the arguments he has just used. We all know that the power to pray is a very important one, but from what the right hon. Gentleman said one wonders why it was put in at all, if it was equally easy to deal with his administration by seeking to reduce his salary. The fact is that the House can pray at any time, but the opportunity to seek to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary is provided on only one of the 20 Supply days in the year, when it is well known that the matter would be treated as a question of confidence in the Government, which is not the case with a Prayer. The right hon. Gentleman is too old a Member of the House to get away with that.
Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 29, line 10, column 3, to leave out from "three," to the end of line 13, and to insert:
"so far as it relates to county boroughs, in subsection (1) the words from 'during' to the end of the subsection and subsection (2)."
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments we have made to Clause 13. As this is the last Amendment, may I express my thanks to the House for the speed and good temper with which this Debate has been conducted today?
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 126].

RAILWAY PENSIONS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "—That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
10.48 p.m.
Sir John Mellor: I wish to refer to the position of those rail-

1809
way pensioners who draw their pensions upon the pre-war scale and in consequence suffer substantial hardship owing to the rise in the cost of living. They were the salaried staffs, those employed as stationmasters, goods agents, special class clerks and other senior clerks. I am asking the Minister if he will agree to an inquiry into their position. I recognise that the question is a rather complicated one, but for the purposes of this Debate, in order to simplify the matter as far as possible, I propose to limit what I have to say to the age group that retired before July, 1941. There are about 10,000 men in that age group who are now all 68 years of age or older. Those who retired later are also affected in more or less the same way, but those who retired before that date are the worst sufferers upon whom it is best to focus attention at the moment.
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to agree to an inquiry into their case. I see no reason why the inquiry should not deal with the categories which retired later in the course of the same proceedings. The trouble with these people is that they get no cost-of-living bonus, except those whose pensions are less than £135 a year. In 1944 a very slight alleviation was made in the position of those whose pensions were less than £135 a year, otherwise the 10,000 men who retired before July, 1941, got no cost-of-living bonus. The first time that attention was drawn to this matter was in December, 1943, when the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), in the course of the Debate on the Address, said:
"The Government control of the railways is a pretty good thing for the Treasury. It is making a handsome profit out of it, and I do not think it is asking too much to ask the Chancellor that his proposals should be wide enough to cover the case of retired railway salaried staffs."
The hon. Gentleman concluded:
"I assure the Chancellor that there is very real hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 3rd December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 682.]
If there was real hardship then there is much greater hardship now. In other cases this hardship has been recognised by the Government. Supplementary cost-of-living pensions were granted to retired Army officers with a ceiling of £600, as against a ceiling of £135 for the class we are now discussing. The position of retired civil servants was dealt with by
1810
the Pensions Increase Acts of 1944 and 1947, and the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, and in various consequential Statutory Rules and Orders. The position of teachers was also dealt with, as was that of local government officers and other categories of Government employees. Therefore, I feel that there is a prima facie case for dealing with these former railway employees. On 14th February, my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) asked the Minister of Transport whether he would
"make regulations under Section 98 of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide for the revision of pensions granted under superannuation schemes having regard to the increased cost of living since the retirement took place."
The Parliamentary Secretary replied as follows:
"No. The question of granting supplementary allowances to existing pensioners has been raised by the trades unions and by other parties with the Railway Executive, who have had to decline such applications on the grounds of cost. My right hon. Friend would not feel justified on making regulations on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 119.]
I would say, in passing—and I want to be objective about it and am not making any complaint—that when the Parliamentary Secretary says the question is raised by the trade unions, I do not think that the trade unions have any standing when the question of the pensions of retired persons is at issue. I recognise that they are indeed concerned with the future pensions of persons now employed, but I am informed that actually they have no standing to negotiate with regard to the pensions of persons who have already retired. I may be wrong, and if so, no doubt the Minister will correct me on that point.
I sought to raise this matter and did so on the Second Reading of a Private Bill, the British Transport Commission Bill, on 22nd February. I briefly raised the case and was hoping for a reply from the Minister; but unfortunately his speech was closured by his own. Chief Whip and we never got the answer to which we had been looking forward. I hope we shall be more fortunate tonight. I wrote to him immediately after the Debate and he referred my letter to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, Sir Cyril Hurcomb. Sir Cyril replied to me in a very full letter, of which I will read the last paragraph:

1811
"Existing pension arrangements apply only to retired salaried staff and not to retired wages staff, the great majority of whom are not covered by pensions schemes. Were anything further to be done for retired railway salaried staff who already receive pensions, there would therefore be immediate difficulties with the retired wages grade staff, quite apart from the cost which would be involved in providing from the Commission's revenues supplements for the very large number of persons concerned."
I gather from that paragraph that the real obstacle is not financial but diplomatic—the fear that if some alleviation is granted in these cases, it will open the way to other demands.
One thing which I think should be stressed is that the railway companies during the war could have done nothing to help in this matter because the railways had been taken over by the Government for a fixed rental. They were virtually requisitioned for a rent of £43 million a year, which, in fact, was insufficient to pay any dividend on certain classes of railway capital. On the other hand, in the course of the war, the Government made a profit of £200 million and they were therefore in a fairly strong position to deal with cases of this kind.
I want to put to the Minister one or two propositions of principle which arise out of consideration of the position of these 10,000 railway pensioners because these men, of course, all retired before the railways were nationalised. I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that, in his view, other things being equal, those who retired before the nationalisation of an industry should be in no worse position than those who retired after the nationalisation of an industry. I would urge that proposition because—at any rate, in the case of the railways—the Government not only took over the assets but also the liabilities of the companies; and in my submission they should assume not only the financial liabilities, but also the moral liabilities involved.
I should further like to ask him to agree that the employees of a nationalised industry should not be regarded as in any way inferior to civil servants; and that their claim to fair treatment in respect of pensions should be regarded as equally strong. Because the Government have converted men engaged in free enterprise into servants of a State
1812
monopoly, I do not think the Government should proceed to try to hive them off so that they are in a position inferior to that of other servants of the State. That conception of equality is contemplated in Section 98 of the Transport Act, 1947, and if I may occupy a few seconds further of the time of the House, I would read the material words:
"The Minister may make Regulations for providing pensions for persons employed in any undertaking transferred to the Commission but who have not been taken into the service of the Commission."
That, I suggest, implied that the intention of Parliament was that these railwaymen, who had retired before nationalisation came to the railways, but whose industry has become a State monopoly, should be regarded by the Minister as entitled to receive as much consideration from him as railwaymen who have retired since or who may retire in the future. That is the implication; that the same consideration should be given to these men as to any civil servant in his Ministry.
I feel that there is a strong case for an inquiry. I recognise that the matter is somewhat complicated but I hope the Minister will realise that here is a real hardship and that he will say that he is prepared to grant an inquiry.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Gunter: I am in the dubious position of agreeing with the case which the hon. Baronet has made, but I must inform him that his presentation is entirely misinformed. I speak on behalf of part of the organisation catering for these men, and I can say that there is in some cases real hardship. It is true that these men are superannuated on pre-war scales; but a great mistake of the hon. Baronet is that these matters could have been put right before nationalisation and ought to have been put right then. Far from it being the case, as submitted by him on 22nd February, that if it had not been for the nationalisation of railways it would have been an obligation on the former railway owners to see that these men were well treated, this matter was taken up in 1943 and the trade unions approached the railway companies as long ago as 1940. The railway companies then stated that the concession would place railway superannuitants in a better position than civil servants and others. That was the reply at that time.

1813
In 1944 a new Pensions Increase Act was presented; at the time it was presented we argued that a new set of circumstances had arisen and that the old argument did not apply.
Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member said that representations were made to the railway companies, and infers that the railway companies were then privately owned. But the railways were under Government control.
Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Baronet will allow me to make my speech in my own way, I shall try to convince him that if the railway companies had come forward and made representations to the Government, they would have received sympathetic treatment. That was the statement made in this House by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). He told us that all representations would be sympathetically treated. That statement was communicated to the chairmen of the railway companies, but no action was taken in this matter. It was then raised again on 18th April, 1944, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated the assurance that any representations would be considered sympathetically. The railway companies refused to make those representations, and therefore I submit that it is quite unfair to suggest that the railway companies could not do it before nationalisation because of Government control. They could have done so, but decided not to make those representations.
Then we come to December, 1944, when a very meagre and limited concession was made. Again, we stated that this concession was really of no great use to the vast majority. Then on 29th May, 1945, this matter was again raised, this time by a Member of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who asked a Question. The Minister's reply was that supplementary allowances were already given to certain annuitants, but that the question of supplementary pensions was a matter for the railway companies. The Minister stated, however, that any representations they might desire to make to the Government regarding the position during this period of control would be given the most careful consideration. This statement was again drawn to the attention of the companies, but they declined to take any action. They declined to make any move
1814
at all to come forward to the Government, which had virtually promised sympathetic consideration. Therefore, I submit that it is entirely wrong to suggest that if it had not been for nationalisation this matter would have been dealt with. In accordance with the regime we knew so well before the war, they declined to take any steps at all.
These negotiations proceeded after 1945. The trade union has thrown all its resources into trying to better the position of these persons, who are undoubtedly suffering great hardship. The last reply from the Transport Executive was that they were unable to consider granting supplementary allowances to retired salaried staff until consideration had been given to the general question of the pensions scheme for those grades for whom no pensions scheme had been made yet. There is a very real case to which the Minister, I hope, will address himself, and draw the attention of the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive to the conditions under which many worthy servants of the railways are living, not covered by the new insurance scheme at all.
But it is entirely wrong to create an impression that nationalisation has been a bar to the progress we desire in this matter. It could have been settled, and settled satisfactorily, during the years of the war, on the statements of Ministers. The companies chose not to do it, and I hope those annuitants already feeling frustration will bear in mind that nationalisation has nothing at all to do with it.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him what steps have been taken or are intended under the powers vested in him under Section 98 of the Transport Act, 1947? If any negotiations have been begun, at what stage are those negotiations?
11.9 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The hon. Gentleman who raised this matter put the simple and direct issue to me whether I will institute an inquiry into the position of retired salaried railwaymen's pensions. I regret that I see no useful purpose in acceding to that request. All the facts are known, and have been fully considered, and I want to

1815
repeat some of the facts tonight. I regret, however, that on a previous occasion we could not deal with this issue. The only proposal that was made or consideration given by the late railway companies, as my hon. Friend has stated, was in 1945, when those who were below the minimum of £135 a year were brought up to that level. I should like to deal with the question of the moral obligation which the Transport Commission, the hon. Baronet alleges, should have taken over from the railway companies. As the railway companies had never accepted the moral obligation of his case, beyond the one concession which they gave, I do not see any case for his allegation that the British Transport Commission are shirking any moral obligation.
Sir J. Mellor: Surely during the material time the railway companies had no say in the matter, because they were under control. All the railways received was a fixed rental, which they had to distribute to their shareholders in so far as it could cover dividends. That was all.
Mr. Barnes: I do not think that can stand examination. It was the Railway Executive of that period, which consisted of the four general managers of the old main line companies, who went to the Minister of War Transport, Lord Leathers, and submitted this proposal to him. It is true that under the arrangements between the Government and the railways at that time any fresh commitment had to be provided by the Minister, but the Minister did approve the only recommendation they submitted to him, and if the railway companies had any desire to go further in the matter there was nothing to prevent them from submitting it to the then Minister.
Therefore, the British Transport Commission, in January, 1948, inherited these superannuation schemes, and today there are approximately 99,000 persons covered by them, and there are 32,000 drawing superannuation annuities. What I think my hon. Friend and everyone else must recognise is that these superannuation schemes are not solvent. They were not solvent in the year before the railway companies ceased to be responsible. If
1816
one takes the year 1947, the payments made by the railway companies amounted to £4,187,000. Of that sum, the deficiency payment that came from current revenues of the railways amounted to £2,452,000. It is true that we have not the figures yet for 1948. It is almost certain that the deficiency which the British Transport Commission will have to pay to maintain existing payments will amount at least to a sum equal to that of 1947, and possibly more. We have reached the position that the railway revenue is already meeting approximately 75 per cent. of the cost of these schemes, and the general finance of the railways under the British Transport Commission's administration as I know it today does not permit them to impose additional burdens of that character.
The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Gunter) referred to the reply which the trade unions received from the Railway Executive in regard to recent negotiations that have taken place. I should place a different interpretation upon the last sentence of Sir Cyril Hurcomb's letter. He must have in mind not only financial considerations. It is a question of equity rather than diplomacy. One cannot dispute the fact that the great majority of wages staffs are not covered by any pensions scheme at all. From the standpoint of equity, while no one disputes that any person existing on fixed pensions, or any kind of fixed income, is suffering direct hardship when there is a general rise in commodity prices, nevertheless the Commission carry obligations to all of their staff, and in so far as there is a deficit of £2,400,000 on current revenue of the Commission in consequence of meeting those commitments, one can quite see the impossibility at the present time of imposing this additional burden.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (FURTHER LIABILITY)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (FURTHER LIABILITY)
EMPLOYMENT
  Tyre Manufacturing Industry (Redundant Workers)
  Tyre Manufacturing Industry (Redundant Workers)
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  Shipyard Workers
  Shipyard Workers
  Remploy Factories, South Wales
  Remploy Factories, South Wales
  SCOTLAND (WATER AND DRAINAGE SCHEMES)
  SCOTLAND (WATER AND DRAINAGE SCHEMES)
  WAR PENSIONS (NEXT OF KIN)
  WAR PENSIONS (NEXT OF KIN)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agricultural Land (Death Duties)
  Agricultural Land (Death Duties)
  Pork and Eggs (Dollar Purchases)
  Pork and Eggs (Dollar Purchases)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Advertising and Propaganda Services
  Advertising and Propaganda Services
  Development Value (Claims)
  Development Value (Claims)
  Revenue and Expenditure
  Revenue and Expenditure
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Proposed Factory, Blaenau Ffestiniog
  Proposed Factory, Blaenau Ffestiniog
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Watch and Clock Repairing
  Watch and Clock Repairing
  CINEMAS (SUNDAY OPENING)
  CINEMAS (SUNDAY OPENING)
AGRICULTURE
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Irish Cattle (Quarantine)
  Irish Cattle (Quarantine)
  Knowle House, Mirfield
  Knowle House, Mirfield
  SINGAPORE (REGISTERED VOTERS)
  SINGAPORE (REGISTERED VOTERS)
  ADEN (LANGUAGE TEACHING)
  ADEN (LANGUAGE TEACHING)
  U.S.A. AIRMEN, RUISLIP
  U.S.A. AIRMEN, RUISLIP
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Alness—Took the Oath.

THE LATE LORD PORTAL
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, before we approach the Business of the day, I am sure it will be your wish that I should mention the grievous loss that we have sustained by the death of Lord Portal. It has been remarkable that in the short time since we adjourned for the Easter Recess the Angel of Death has been close to this House and has removed beloved and conspicuous figures. We have already paid tribute to Lord Lucan and the learned Lords, Lord Uthwatt and Lord du Parcq, and now suddenly Lord Portal has been taken. Reflecting upon the losses of these few days one might say that the Angel of Death has been so near to us that, to use Bright's words, we "may almost hear the beating of his wings." By the passing of Lord Portal the nation has lost a kind, emphatic, clear-headed and most competent servant, not only to the State, but to the many other interests that he served.
I think that all of us who knew him well had for him a real affection. In conversation with him, I found at all times that he had a clear understanding and very wide sympathies. I cannot forget that when, as Minister of Works, he was concerned in improvising housing accommodation of a temporary kind, the thing uppermost in his mind was solicitude for the wife who would have to spend her time in it. His whole desire was to make it as convenient and as handy as possible within the limited space available. Whenever he took hold of a thing, it went smoothly and successfully—that, at all events, was my impression. He would go out of his way to give credit to his helpers, and would say little of his part in it. But those of us who know how great matters are handled know well how much any success
420
achieved must have been due to his wise guidance. His abilities are evident from the fact that, when it fell to him to handle or have control of the whole family business, in a very short time it was greatly enlarged. As we know too, he had intimate association with many Governments.
Among a long series of services which he performed, the last that many of us may recall was his Chairmanship of the Committee that organised the Olympic Games. There again, he was always attributing to his helpers the success and the smooth running of the organisation; he said nothing of himself, I am quite sure that to many of your Lordships, as well as to me, Lord Portal was a generous-hearted, kind and constant friend. We are the poorer by his death; we are the richer by his contributions to the State, and we are inspired by his example.
2.41 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, I rise to associate myself with what has been so well said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Lord Portal, whom we mourn to-day, was, as he has said, a remarkable man, with very wide interests. To anyone who did not know him he might have appeared, with his background as the head of a big business, as an example of a capitalist, in the sense in which that word is sometimes used—or misused—by some supporters of the Party to which some noble Lords opposite belong. But in fact he was something very different from that, as we all know. He combined with a shrewd business sense and insight, kindliness and imagination and a broad sympathy which enabled him to understand the problems of those less fortunate than himself. It was those qualities that brought him so many friends in all Parties, both in this House and outside. No one who ever heard Lord Portal speak here will forget the experience. He was in no sense an orator: but his speeches, with their admixture of practical experience and sturdy common sense, were always effective and convincing.
As the Leader of the House has already said, he was a good and generous employer and a valuable public servant who was called upon to perform many and various tasks, and did all of them well. He will be remembered best by the "Portal house." As your Lordships will

421
remember, that house was criticised in some respects at the time; but it has become the prototype of all the prefabricated houses that have been built since. I was fortunate enough, I think, to be almost the first person to see the specimen house which was set up in the grounds of the Tate Gallery. I went there with Lord Portal himself very early in the day when it became open to the public, and I remember the indelible impression that he made upon me by the thought and care which he devoted to the comfort of those for whom the house was designed. As your Lordships know, he was not physically a strong man. He suffered for many years from phlebitis, and he was, I believe, in constant pain. But this never interfered with his activities and never lessened the gusto with which he enjoyed life. Such qualities as those are as rare as they are valuable. He did his country many services, and his country and his friends are the poorer by his death. I am sure your Lordships will wish me, on behalf of the Party whom I represent, to convey our very deep sympathy to his wife in the grievous loss which has befallen her.
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, those who sit on these Benches would wish to be associated with the two tributes which have been paid to Lord Portal. I think what struck some of us who knew him was his readiness to sacrifice his time, his leisure and his energy—and his energy was certainly great—to any cause which he thought would benefit his country or help his fellow citizens. That is evidence of a patriotic, noble and generous spirit—a spirit which we can ill afford to lose. We, too, should like to extend our sympathy to Lady Portal and his relatives.

SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIR MAIL RATES FOR NEWSPAPERS
2.45 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: 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 what progress has been made towards securing a reduction in postage rates for newspapers transmitted by air mail within the British Commonwealth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the difficulty in allocating the necessary additional aircraft capacity to enable air mail facilities for second class mail to be provided at reduced postage rates is being resolved. The Postmaster-General hopes very shortly to provide such facilities to Canada in addition to those already available to the British West Indies, thanks to the co-operation and agreement of the Minister of Civil Aviation and British Overseas Airways Corporation. The provision of an air mail service for second class mail to Commonwealth destinations on the "Empire" routes to South Africa, India and Australia is under active and urgent consideration. It is hoped, in the absence of any unforeseen difficulties, to extend the service as and when this becomes possible and to cover all the areas concerned by about the end of the year.
LORD MANCROFT: Arising out of that reply, for which I am very grateful to the noble Earl, may I ask him the following supplementary question: Do not His Majesty's Government agree that the speedy dissemination of British news and views, which is very important today, is being seriously handicapped by the fact that it costs nearly ten times as much as it did before the war to send even the thin paper edition of The Times or Daily Telegraph to, say, Australia? Will His Majesty's Government do all they can to widen and accelerate the admirable proposals to which we have just listened?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord says, and it is for that reason we are proposing to reduce the postage rate for printed matter, as I have already shown in the reply I have given.
LORD HAWKE: Arising out of the noble Earl's reply, may I ask this question? In view of the fact that the British South American Airways have managed to reduce their charges for carrying newspapers for the Post Office while the

423
B.O.A.C. have not done so, will the proposed amalgamation of these two Corporations result in the raising of air mail rates for newspapers to the West Indies and South America?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is another question, and I should wish to have notice of it before I could give a reply to this House.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Earl whether His Majesty's Government have under consideration the reduction of rates to Malaya, where the rates are extremely high?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That, again, is another question which I cannot answer now, but I will refer it to my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
2.50 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 will use the propaganda machine at their disposal to point out to contributors to the National Insurance Scheme how small a part of the whole is the medical proportion of their weekly contribution, and that it is not necessary to receive extensive medical benefits to make certain of obtaining a fair return for the contribution.]
THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, the position as stated by the noble Lord has been kept well in mind by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, who has repeatedly emphasised it by statements, in Parliament and elsewhere. It has also been emphasised in Press advertisements, leaflets, and other publicity material in communications to the newspapers. This policy will be continued, as opportunity offers. As your Lordships are well aware, the National Health Service is not an insurance scheme. Nearly the whole cost of this Service is borne by general taxation, leaving but a small fraction to come from the National Insurance Fund. Your Lordships would no doubt be
424
interested to learn that of an insured man's contribution of 4s. 11d. per week under the National Insurance Scheme, only 8½d. goes towards the cost of the Health Service, and 4s. 2½d. is to cover him for cash benefits, retirement, widows' pension, unemployment benefit and so on. Even if no use whatever is made of the National Health Service, the value of the pension and other cash benefits provided under the National Insurance Scheme is, in fact, for every class of contributor, a good return for the contribution paid.
LORD HAWKE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask whether His Majesty's Government are aware that this wide dissemination which the noble Lord has mentioned is not getting the information to the people who really require to learn the true facts.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I think the truth is that the great majority of the workers of the nation were insured before the recent scheme came into force and they are carrying on the practice which they carried on under the old scheme. There are, however, those who were not insured under the old scheme, who think they ought to make an effort to get something in return for their payments. It may well be that that section of the population needs a little more enlightenment.

EMPLOYMENT AND POLITICAL OPINION
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: 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 have considered a report in The Times of April 26 to the effect that Messrs. John Lewis Partnership propose to dismiss employees solely on the grounds of their political opinion; whether employees so dismissed can claim unemployment benefit and, if so, whether any way can be found of preventing this firm from thus utilising public funds in a scheme for enforcing their own political views.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have

425
seen the report referred to in the noble Viscount's Question, and I would remind him of the answer given to a question on it by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour, in another place on May 3. As regards the unemployment insurance benefit position, it is not possible to state what decision would be given on any particular claim to unemployment benefit, as every claim is determined by the independent statutory authorities according to all the circumstances of the case. In the past, benefit has not been disallowed if the sole reason for dismissal was the holding of particular political opinions, so long as wages or payment in lieu were not being received from the last employer. We could not contemplate depriving a dismissed employee of any unemployment benefit to which he might be entitled under the existing law. I think it is clear from the letter published in The Times of May 4 from the chairman of this firm that no final decision has yet been reached on this matter, and I would like to repeat the hope expressed by my right honourable friend that they will not continue this practice.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his helpful answer, but may I ask, further, whether the Minister of Labour will keep himself informed in order that we may have particulars later as to what has been the outcome of this change of plan?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that the Minister of Labour is fully seized of the importance of any action which would be taken, if action is taken on the matter to which the noble Viscount refers.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then may I take it that there would be no objection if, a little later on, I were to ask a question to ascertain what has really happened?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I should always be delighted to reply to a question by the noble Viscount.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
2.54 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in. Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Application for patent assignee]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and may be made by that person either alone or jointly with any other person").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Priority date of claims of complete specification.
(2) Where the complete specification is filed in pursuance of a single application accompanied by a provisional specification or a specification which is treated by virtue of a direction under subsection (3) of section three of the principal Act as a provisional specification, and the whole of the subject matter of the claim was substantially described in that specification, the priority date of that claim shall be the date of filing of the application.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2) to omit "the whole of the subject matter of the claim was substantially described" and to insert:
"the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. It goes with two Amendments which follow and also, I think, with a further Amendment at page 3, line 31, which stands in my name. I am sorry that at the beginning of the Committee stage of this admittedly complicated and technical Bill we should be engaged in what is perhaps one of the roost complicated and technical parts of it, but if

427
any of your Lordships feels discouraged, may I offer the assurance that it gets simpler later? No doubt, after we have had one or two explanations from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we shall all see the light much more clearly than I, at any rate, do at present.
The proposal in this Amendment, as those of your Lordships who have examined the Paper will have noticed, is to substitute the phrase "the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed," for language which is now to be found in Clause 4 (2) on page 3 of the Bill. Clause 4 (2) as it now stands in the Bill provides this:
"Where the complete specification is filed in pursuance of a single application accompanied by a provisional specification or a specification which is treated by virtue of a direction under subsection (3) of section Three of the principal Act as a provisional specification. …"
Your Lordships will follow me so far, and it is at this point that it is proposed to put in the words set out in my Amendment so that the subsection will run on:
"and the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed in that specification. …"
The phrase "the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed" is used in the Bill as now printed and it is accepted by those who are expert in this matter—much more expert than I am. Your Lordships will find it, for example, in a clause which you have already adopted—Clause 2 (2).
The general object of the Amendment is to lay down a rather less strict limitation than would be implied if it were to be stipulated that "the whole of the subject matter of the claim was substantially described." It may well be that although in one sense there has not been actually a substantial description, none the less the claim is fairly based on what has been disclosed. Substantially, I should imagine, that is what we wish to ensure. I submit—and this is the opinion of much greater authorities than I am—that that is better achieved by this suggested alternative language. I am not sure, but I rather hope that this proposal is one which those responsible for the Bill may think it proper to accept. Therefore I will not say any more, but I invite the noble Lord opposite to tell us his view of the matter. If I have succeeded in putting on to paper
428
phraseology which commends itself to the Board of Trade, I shall be greatly encouraged for the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("and") to ("in") in line 14, and insert ("the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed.")—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say that in my opinion, for what it is worth, I think this Amendment is right and should be accepted? I would mention one thing which is rather curious and is known only to those intimately connected with inventions. There seems reason to think that it is something like a general rule in regard to many classes of inventions that they are in the air at the time when it becomes important, or when it is thought desirable, to obtain a patent. Often, after the patent is the subject of a specification in the claim, it turns out that three or four people had thought of exactly the same thing and are themselves seeking protection. All that is desired by the determination of the priority date—that is, the date from which the patent operates as between patentee and the other people who would like to have a patent—is that if the invention is fairly described and the matter disclosed, so that everybody knows the substance of it and so that the claim can be said to be fairly based, from that date no one shall be able to object on some technical ground to the date of the patent. On that ground I entirely support what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are grateful for the clear explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, whose Amendment we have pleasure in accepting. We accept not only the one he has just moved, but the other three as well. The noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that we had these Amendments very late, and that they may involve consequential drafting Amendments later. We will look into these between now and the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("and") to ("in") in line 21 and insert ("the claim is fairly based on the matter disclosed").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("and") to disclosed") in line 26 and insert ("the claim is fairly based on the matter").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment I propose to move after Clause 4 to meet the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has put down at page 4, line 3, and which we accept M principle. This Amendment clears the way for the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("this Act and the principal Act").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment is consequential on those previously accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, leave out from the third ("the") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("matter").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given notice that he would move to add to the clause:
"( ) Where a complete specification has been filed—

(a) in pursuance of one or more applications accompained by provisional specifications, or

(b) in pursuance of a convention application,

no claim therein shall be invalidated merely by the publication or use after the date of filing of any such provisional specification or of an application for protection in a foreign country upon which the convention application was based, as the case may be, of matter the whole of which was substantially described in such provisional specification or foreign application."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment to which my noble friend referred just now. It was
430
put down because it was thought that this would be a useful provision to have in the Bill and one which would carry out what I believe is the intention on both sides. Since the Amendment was put down, however, we have observed that the noble Lord opposite on behalf of the Government has put down a new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. I had thought this would come as an Amendment to Clause 4, but if it is better to put it as a new clause—and no doubt the draftsman knows—I am well content. So far as I am able to follow the matter, and I have had the benefit of advice, I think that the new clause which is about to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, does express what was aimed at in my Amendment, and possibly in a better way. We are getting on comfortably, and I have much pleasure in saying that I will not move my Amendment on the understanding that the noble Lord moves his.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Publication of matter described in provisional specification of priority document
" . Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or this Act, the comptroller shall not refuse to grant a patent, and a patent shall not be revoked or invalidated—

(a) where the complete specification is filed or proceeded with in pursuance of an application which was accompanied by a provisional specification or by a specification treated by virtue of a direction under subsection (3) of section three of the principal Act as amended by this Act as a provisional specification, by reason only that any matter described in the provisional specification or in the specification treated as aforesaid as a provisional specification was used or published at any time after the date of filing of that specification;

(b) where the complete specification is filed in pursuance of a convention application, by reason only that any matter disclosed in any application for protection in a convention country upon which the convention application is founded, was used or published at any time after the date of that application for protection."

The noble Lord said: I do not think I need weary the House with a long speech on this Amendment. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it covers his previous Amendment. We put down this Amendment not because we think it better than his, but because the draftsman would prefer it this way, and I think the

431
noble Viscount and I will bow to the wishes of the draftsman. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Additional powers of comptroller in relation to applications
(4) No amendment of a complete specification shall be made in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, and no such amendment shall be made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section after the acceptance of the specification—
(b) so as to make the specification as amended claim an invention larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification without the amendment.
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (4) to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) the result of which would be—

(i) that the specification as amended would claim subject-matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before such amendment, or

(ii) that any act not an infringement of any claim (whether valid or not) in the unamended specification, would be an infringement of any claim (whether valid or not) of the amended specification."

The noble and learned Viscount said: We now approach a more complicated and difficult part of this interesting subject. As the Bill is drawn, in Clause 5 we find "additional powers of the comptroller in relation to applications." The part of that clause which I invite the Committee to consider is subsection (4), which says:
"No amendment of a complete specification shall be made in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, and no such amendment shall be made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section after the acceptance of the specification—
(a) Otherwise than by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation"—
That is all right—
"or
(b) so as to make the specification as amended claim an invention larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification without the amendment."
The question which is raised by my Amendment is whether what is stated under paragraph (b) is stated in the best way.
Undoubtedly this is a very recondite subject. If I understand it rightly, and very likely I do not, the order of events is something like this. A man who invents something and wants a patent goes to the Patent Office and exhibits his document. This is put before one of the examiners of the Patent Office—very skilled gentlemen—who, with great scientific experience, will examine the language of the document. The first requirement is that the examiner has to be satisfied that the specification, as produced is in order. If it is, the examiner so certifies, and thereupon the inventor's proposal is what is called "accepted." That is not at all the same thing as saying he has obtained a patent, but it means that he has got over the first fence.
Then comes the question of whether or not the acceptance is to be followed by the granting of a patent. That is a matter which has to be considered by the comptroller. I think I am right in saying that there are two stages when the comptroller may have to consider whether the document thus accepted requires amendment. The first is after acceptance but before a patent is granted. The comptroller knows that it is in order so far as the examiner's study of it goes, but he has to consider whether or not there should be some change in the language. The second occasion when he may have to do it is after the patent has been granted, when again, in certain cases, he may be invited to consider whether there should not be an amendment of the language. It is in the interests of the patent very often that there should be an amendment, because the patentee avoids difficulties and possible traps, and preserves what he desires to preserve—namely, the product of his own inventive capacity—in the appropriate way.
In Section 13 of the Patent and Designs (Amendment) Act, 1907, there is a proviso which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham indicated just now, is not precisely echoed in the terms of the present Bill. The proviso in the Act of 1907 says:
"Provided that no amendment shall be so allowed that would make a specification, as amended, claim an invention substantially"—
the word "substantially" is used:
"larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification as it stood before the amendment,"

433
and so forth. I think I am right in saying that Mr. Kenneth Swan's Committee, to which we owe so much in this connection, have suggested that the word "substantially" before the word "larger" should come out; so that it will not be "substantially larger" but just "larger." That is a point which I think is thought by the experts to be right. But the real question is: Is this phrase "substantially different from the invention" the best phrase? Whether it is the best phrase or not, I do not think it will be disputed that it is a phrase which has given rise to a good deal of uncertainty and doubt. It may be that a better phrase cannot be found. Such are the limitations of human language, and perhaps of the human mind, that in certain matters we must be content with something that is not pellucidly clear. I think I am right in saying that this phrase:
"… claim an invention substantially larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification as it stood before the amendment,"
has caused much difficulty and uncertainty.
It has sometimes been held that if you are considering that question, all you have to do is to compare the claims, and nothing else—though I think there is another view also on that. At any rate, as does sometimes happen, when the courts have had to apply these words and expound them they have tended to expound them by using other language which is not necessarily very much clearer. Obscurum facere per obscurius is a charge which no doubt one ought not to allege against any judicial authority.
However, the suggestion is—I need not say I do not make it myself, as I am not an expert on this subject; I have tried only vaguely to understand a little of it—that the words which have been put down in my name would express better what is intended. Some people may take the view—I believe some authorities would take the view—that the clause as it stands in the Bill has the exact meaning which I have endeavoured to express in my Amendment. If that is the case, so much the better. But, even so, it is thought that this re-draft would state better what in all fairness the law should be, and that it does not do more than give the patentee that which is fairly his.
May I just put on record these three
434
or four sentences, without seeking to persuade everybody in the House forthwith? The re-draft as shown in my Amendment, merely indicates the principle that a patentee may, by his amendment, claim subject matter which is in substance disclosed in the body of the unamended specification, but subject to certain safeguards which are inherent in the clause. Two safeguards I have mentioned. First there is the case of an amendment to improve the position of the patent. As the Bill says, and as the previous law said, that must be done only "by way of disclaimer, correction, or explanation"; it cannot be dome by addition. The patentee cannot say: "On second thoughts, I would like to amend my claim by adding so and so." That is a very important and necessary limitation. The second safeguard is this. As proposed, these words will make it impossible for a person who infringed no claim of an unamended specification to be caught by the amendment. If a man up to now has infringed nobody's rights, he must not after the event be put in the position where the patentee can say: "Well, I have now amended my claim, and therefore you have now infringed my rights." That would be manifestly wrong and unfair. That point is provided for in the language of this Amendment.
I have the feeling that the Board of Trade might well be disposed to accept this proposal, provided it is clear on examination that the adoption of it would not bring about wide initial claims. No doubt, when a man is to be granted a monopoly for an invention, it is quite proper that the right to stop other people from using it should not be given in language which is unduly vague and wide. But I submit for the consideration of those who understand this matter much better than I do that there is an answer to that anxiety, which I believe has been entertained by the Board of Trade. The answer is in Clause 9 of the Bill, which provides that patents of addition can be obtained without being exposed to the attack based on the main invention, and consequently a broad initial claim ceases to be attractive and becomes unnecessary because future developments outside it can be protected by patents of addition. That is the effect of Clause 9. I am aware that Mr. Swan's Committee considered this matter, and they apparently thought that last consideration rather justified a

435
conclusion that this clause which allows amendment should not be enlarged. But with the great respect which I feel—and everybody who has ever considered this subject must feel—for Mr. Swan and his Committee, who have worked so diligently and with such clear heads, I submit that Clause 9 works the other way. I should have thought the opposite conclusion would have been more logical, and that the curb on wide initial claims and the temptation to make them which is afforded by Clause 9, would justify giving these enlarged powers of amendment.
I have at different times inflicted on the House and the Committee a great many observations on a great many subjects, but I am not conscious that I have ever been so bold as to stand here and speak on anything so technical with so slender a foundation. I apologise, but somebody has to do it. I have endeavoured to put in as clear terms as I can command what I believe to be the argument. I feel sure that the noble Lord opposite will not reject the proposal with contumely; and if he is not able here and now to accept it, I hope that what I have said on this difficult subject will justify further consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: For my part, and certainly with no arrogance in the feeling that my opinion is necessarily right, I agree in substance with the Amendment of my noble and learned friend who has just spoken, with one single addition which I will explain in a minute. I like it better than the clause in the Bill as it comes before us, because it is so much simpler. I think everybody who reads it, and who knows anything about patents, will be able to understand the questions arising when an amendment of a complete specification comes before the comptroller. The first question is that the amendment is not to be
"otherwise than by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation."
That is fair enough. But your Lordships will note that "explanation" may mean a great many things, and I should not be at all surprised to hear that the courts had to decide whether something
436
in the explanation does go beyond a disclaimer or correction.
There are two main questions. If your Lordships accept my noble friend's Amendment, the first is that we should look at the amended specification, compare it with the first and ask: Is the subject matter the same? The specification must not claim subject matter which has not yet been disclosed, so we compare the two and see whether one is wider than the other. The second question that we ask ourselves is whether an act, not an infringement of any claim in the unamended specification, would be an infringement of a claim in the amended specification. That again is a simple proposition. It may be one of great difficulty in fact, but everybody can understand what it means. There is only one thing I have to say, and that is to suggest for the consideration of the Government that only one case is left out in the proposed amendment which we are now considering. That is the case of an invention which does not differ vitally, and does not rely on any subject matter which has not been disclosed, but which prohibits a claim for an invention larger than that which is disclosed. It is a small addition in regard to the width of the claim which I think ought to be prohibited. It may not be within any of the three questions which I have mentioned to the House, but the claim may be a trifle larger, particularly if it is a chemical patent. People working with a chemical patent keep on discovering very small improvements and very small differences of temperature, or, it may be, some slight addition of some chemical substance, which means that while the subject matter is the same the invention is a little larger. That is the thing which—though it may not often occur—I think should be barred by Clause 5 of the Bill.
I am suggesting that the Government should accept the Amendment which we are now considering, with the addition, in sub-paragraph (ii), or perhaps it would come better in sub-paragraph (i), of some such words as:
"… that the specification as amended would claim either an invention larger than that claimed in the specification without the amendment or not in substance disclosed in that specification."
In other words, if we make the words cover the slight amendments about which

437
I am thinking—which do not really constitute a different specification, or one which is not in substance disclosed—I think that the Amendment will have the advantage of simplicity, and will cover every point which is mentioned in subsection (4) of Clause 5 of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, this is where we have our first "tiff," after going along so well. I hope to persuade noble Lords that the wording in the Bill is better than the noble Viscount's Amendment. As the noble Viscount has said, this is the most technical part of the Bill, and he has made the admission that he does not know much about it and has to be guided by experts. I am prepared to say exactly the same. Therefore this is really a conflict of expert opinion, of which the noble Viscount and I are only the mouthpieces. The experts at my disposal claim that the Amendment as proposed by the noble Viscount would lead to a wide and covetous initial claim. The Swan Committee considered this point with great care, and on a great deal of evidence, and as they put the matter in far better language than I could hope to do, I will, with your Lordships' permission, quote what they said. I quote from paragraph 221, page 44, of the Swan Committee's Final Report:
"It has been strongly urged that greater latitude in amendment should be permitted than that allowed by these Sections, and that the power of amendment should be so enlarged as to permit the re-drafting and widening of the claims, provided that the claims so amended do not contain matter beyond that disclosed in the specification. On the other hand, it has been objected that no such extension of the powers of amendment as that proposed should be permitted, as it would tend to encourage or condone the loose drafting of claims and might give rise to the substitution of claims for those originally made, based upon vague or general language in the specification which, in the light of subsequently acquired knowledge, might appear to cover an invention which it was not originally intended to cover. We have come to the conclusion that it is undesirable to enlarge the powers of amendment in the way suggested. We think, however, that a sufficient measure of relief can be given to patentees who have failed to draft their claims in a way adequately to cover their inventions, by giving them the opportunity of rectifying the omission in the claims they have made, in cases where the circumstances permit of this, by filing patents of addition to cover such variations or amplification of the monopoly claimed in respect of
438
their basic invention as they may deem necessary, and it is for that reason that we have recommended in the appropriate Section of the Acts that patents of addition should not be liable to be held invalid merely because they showed no inventive step beyond the disclosure in the basic specification."
Your Lordships will see in the Marshalled List au Amendment to Clause 9, at page line 34, which gives effect to the latter part of the observations of the Swan Committee. I think that that Amendment meets substantially some of the points which the noble and learned Viscount has made, and I therefore invite him to withdraw his Amendment. I think it is proper to say that all the weight of technical opinion—and the Swan Committee heard a lot of evidence on this matter—is in favour of what we propose. Our proposals, if I may use the expression, are pure Swan. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for so clearly expressing the view which he has been led to adopt. I was aware of the passage in the Swan Report and, indeed, inferentially I referred to it. I will certainly withdraw my Amendment at this stage; I should not dream of pressing it now on my own authority. But I do not wish the matter to be regarded on either side as disposed of, because we are all trying to make this difficult part of the law as good as we can. I would say only that I wonder whether, in reaching the view just expressed by the noble Lord, sufficient importance has been attached to the power of the court in its discretion to refuse an amendment if the conduct of the patentee justifies that refusal. That is a discretionary power, and not automatic, and it is only to cover cases which in ordinary fairness ought to be covered that this proposal is made. I will gladly accept the noble Lord's suggestion and withdraw my Amendment now, but I wish it to be clearly understood that the matter will need further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I suggest that we get our experts together, and I hope that they will agree as easily as the noble and learned Viscount and I appear to agree.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I remind the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the question on which this Amendment is based is the question of whether there should or should not be a new patent? In other words, if the power of the comptroller is applied under Clause 5, there will not be any new patent at all. If he does not allow something of the sort to be done, it can probably be done by a patent of addition under Clause 9. The two things are quite separate. The first says: "If you amend your specification you ought not to come to us again." The second says: "Here is a new patent which we give you as on a different date." With great respect, I venture to think that the passage which the noble Lord has read from the Swan Report is not relevant to the present question, because it deals with a patent of addition and not with the powers of the comptroller to amend the specification.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and I will see that the matter is looked into between now and Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Additional grounds of opposition to grant of patent
6. An application for a patent may be opposed under section eleven of the principal Act upon any of the following grounds, in addition to the grounds mentioned in that section, that is to say—

(a) that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification, was used in the United Kingdom before the priority date of that claim;

(b) that the subject matter of any claim of the complete specification is obvious and does not involve any inventive step having regard to matter published in the United Kingdom, before the priority date of the claim, in any specification or other document (not being a specification or document of any class described in subsection (1) of section forty-one of the principal Act) or having regard to what was used in the United Kingdom before that date;

Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section no account shall be taken of any secret user.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (b), after "and" to insert "clearly." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to indicate
440
clearly and without disturbing the general onus of proof on the opponent in all opposition proceedings that the opposition will fail on this particular ground of lack of subject-matter unless it is quite plain that the invention is completely lacking in that subject-matter. I do not think I need say more, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("and") insert ("clearly").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I agree that we can dispose of this matter quite briefly, but there is one observation I should like to make. I had originally put down a rather different form of words aiming at the same purpose as that which the noble Lord has just explained. It is very important, of course, that when the comptroller is considering whether an opposition to the grant of a patent is justified he should not refuse it on the ground that there is no inventive step, unless that objection is really established. The burden is upon the objector. Therefore, I had put down as an alternative to what was in the Bill words which would have said that
"the subject matter of any claim of the complete specification is obvious and manifestly does not involve any appreciable inventive step."
I think that those words, though longer, are to be preferred. We have had some discussion about this matter, and I am glad to know that a modification is thought proper. On reflection, I am a little doubtful whether the word "clearly" coming in where he proposes it is in the right place. Should it not be "is clearly obvious and does not"? However, that is a matter for your consideration hereafter.
I have only one other observation to make. I have now drafted an Amendment in this respect. When the phrase on the subject of a ground of opposition to the grant of a patent is changed as the Government propose here in Clause 6, it seems to me that it will also have to be changed in Clause 13, where a similar question arises, not as a ground of opposition to the grant of a patent, but as a ground for getting a revocation of the patent. Because, when one turns to page 9, line 32, one sees the same words: "was obvious and did not involve any inventive step." I should like to give

441
notice now to my noble friend that it seems to me that we could hardly have two differing phrases, one which introduces this adverb "clearly" and the other which does not. Therefore, I am handing in a manuscript Amendment to put in "clearly." Otherwise, I agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Extension of term of patent
(2) An order for the extension of the term of a patent may be made under the said subsection (6) on the application of a person holding an exclusive licence under the patent (that is to say a licence from the patentee giving to the licensee, or to the licensee and persons authorised by him, to the exclusion of all other persons, permission to make, use, exercise and vend the invention) if the court or comptroller is satisfied that the licensee as such has suffered any such loss or damage as is mentioned in that subsection.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment: is put down here, but I hope the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will feel that it expresses what he desires in the next Amendment, which is in his name, better than he has put it. I therefore content myself at this moment with formally moving the Amendment, and await the observations of the noble Earl. Perhaps I could help him. We think that the noble Earl's Amendment is too restrictive and might operate against the interests of British licensees. Therefore, I move this Amendment in the hope that the noble Lord will not move his when we come to it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("holding") to ("a") in line 4.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for putting down an Amendment in his name which I think certainly goes a long way, if not the whole way, to meet me. The purpose of my Amendment was really to bring this clause into conformity with the words of Clause 34 (3), where precisely the same words are found. If the noble Lord could give me an answer to this next question, I should be quite happy that this Amendment covers my point. Under the proposal which is on the Paper, would the exclusive licensee under my
442
Amendment be able to obtain extension of the patent regardless of the wishes of the patentee who had, of course, surrendered his rights, although a royalty would still be payable? So far as I understand it, the noble Lord has met my Amendment, but if he could give me an answer to that question, either now or later, I should be grateful.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I shall have to look into that matter before committing myself to a definite answer, but my impression is that the noble Earl is right. However, I will not commit myself on that particular point. I will look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Patents of addition
(4) The grant of a patent of addition shall not be refused, nor a patent of addition revoked or invalidated, on the ground only that the invention claimed in the complete specification does not involve any inventive step having regard to the main invention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("nor a patent of addition") and insert ("and a patent granted as a patent of addition shall not be").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (4):
"or to any improvement or modification of the main invention in respect of which a patent of addition has been granted, or in respect of which an application for such a patent is pending."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I previously referred when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was moving his Amendment about a patent of addition. The object is to protect a patent of addition against invalidity on the ground mentioned in the subsection in the Bill—that is, lack of subject matter or inventive merit when compared with the main invention. As the subsection stands, a patent of addition could be refused or revoked on the ground that the invention protected by that patent of addition did not involve an inventive step over the invention

443
covered by the existing patent of addition. We think it wise to amend it in that way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I had down an Amendment which aimed at exactly the same object. I am quite prepared at this stage to accept the form of words which the noble Lord has suggested, which, so far as I can follow, covers exactly the same point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I had hoped that the noble and learned Viscount would agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Voluntary indorsement of patents
12.—(1) The comptroller shall not be required to advertise a request under section twenty-four of the principal Act for the indorsement of a patent with the words "licences of right."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1):
"but shall notify the request to any person entered on the register as entitled to an interest in the patent and shall give that person an opportunity of being heard before acting upon the request."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment which I now move seeks to alter the first subsection of Clause 12. We have no objection—and indeed I think nobody could have any objection—to the provision in that subsection whereby the comptroller is released from his obligation to advertise a request for the indorsement of a patent with the words "licences of right," but we do feel that he ought to be bound to notify any person who has an interest and whose name is entered on the roster. The words which I intend to insert in this subsection would, as I understand it, make that provision. My intention is really to put the inventor and the assignee in precisely the same position. I feel that there is considerable strength in that proposal, and, without further lengthy explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will see his way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think that on balance of argument the noble Earl is right, although it might cause some delay which we were anxious to avoid. I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(5) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the comptroller under the last foregoing subsection."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal from a decision of the comptroller settling the terms of a licence under patent indorsed "licence of right," granted to an existing licensee in exchange for his existing licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Revocation of patent by court
13.—(1) The following section shall be substituted for section twenty-five of the principle Act:—
"25.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a patent may, on the petition of any person interested, be revoked by the court on any of the following grounds, that is to say—
(i) that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;
or on any other ground on which a patent might, immediately before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, have been repealed by scire facias.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section no account shall be taken of any previous working of the invention in secret—

(a) for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only; or

(b) by a Government department or any person authorised by a Government

445
department, in consequence of the communication or disclosure of the invention by the applicant for the patent directly or indirectly to a Government department or person authorised as aforesaid; or

(c) by any other person in consequence of the communication or disclosure of the invention by the applicant for the patent and without his consent or acquiescence;

and for the purposes of paragraph (f) of the said subsection (1) no account shall be taken of any secret user.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved in subsection (1) to leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert:
"(i) That the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly ascertained or that any claim of the complete specification is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification."
The noble Viscount said: We now come to an important clause of the Bill. As your Lordships see, Clause 13 seeks to substitute an elaborate form of words for Section 25 of the principal Act; and the main purpose of the clause is, I venture to think, right enough. It is a clause which lays down what are the grounds on which a patent may, on the petition of any person interested, be revoked; and there is a list of grounds running from (a) to (k). The proposal which I now put before the Committee is that we should leave out paragraph (i) and substitute a new form of words.
As the Bill is now drawn, the ground for revocation expressed in paragraph (i) is thus stated:
"that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification."
Your Lordships will notice the phrase "that the subject matter for which protection is claimed." My proposal is that we should substitute for that a paragraph which would run
"(i) that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly ascertained or that any claim of the complete specification is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification."
The latter part of it is common to both forms. I venture to think that the words which are down in my name are to be preferred, and I hope the Government will agree. Strictly speaking, it is not "subject matter" which is defined in a claim. What the examiner does is to examine the document, and see what is
446
the scope of the claim. That, I venture to think, is the proper way to express the matter, and my wording is further justified on the ground that it is in fact the language of the 1907 Act. The question is: Is there ambiguity here; and what, on the proper view of the matter, is the scope of the claim?
Unless I have misunderstood the position, I think Mr. Swan's Committee considered this matter. They did not recommend this change of words, and much as I respect the skill and ingenuity with which this new Bill is drafted—the draftsman is certainly to be commended—do not let us unnecessarily substitute a new form of words for an old form which is well known to everybody who has had anything to do with patents, and which, as it seems to me, can be changed only at the risk of creating an ambiguity and the suggestion that something different is now being provided. The inference is that if you change the language you mean something by it. If nothing is intended by the change, I hope very much that those who are responsible here will feel that it is much better to speak of "the scope of the claim" rather than "the subject matter." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, leave out paragraph (i) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: To my mind no question is more difficult than to define in many cases what is the scope of the invention. The books are full of cases where the courts have been greatly puzzled to know how to deal with what we always used to call "the subject matter of a claim." That itself is rather an invention of lawyers, to describe what they mean when they are dealing here with the matter of paragraph (h) of the old Section 25, or with the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend. I am afraid that I do not know how to amend the words which for so long have been the only definition or explanation that can be given of "subject matter." The old story, which everybody understood, was that if the subject matter had not been clearly stated in the specification the patent was bad; but though many learned people have attempted to tell us what it means, they have never yet succeeded. This is the best thing I have

447
heard about it, that there must be an inventive step and, in default of an inventive step, there is no proper subject matter for the patent.
I wonder whether I may tell your Lordships a very short story which is rather germane and will take your minds off this troublesome question for one minute. When I first had anything to do with patents and discussed with eminent experts what they really meant by "subject matter," I was told a story of a Chancery barrister who went to the West Indies. He was ordered there, many years ago, because he was suffering from overwork and was a very sick man. When he went on the ship to Jamaica, and places in the neighbourhood, he saw the people in the ship hauling up an anchor chain, which he observed was exceedingly heavy and made of enormous links. He said: "Why do you need links of this size? It is very unwieldy. Surely you could do with something very much smaller." The links of that date were oval-shaped, and they had not between them the crossbar, the technical name of which I have forgotten. They told him that what happened when a big strain was put upon the links of such a chain was that they went in a little, gave a little and then cracked.
On his way home the barrister thought that over, and thought to himself that it would be quite easy to prevent their bending inwards like that by putting a cross-piece in the links of the chain. When he got back to his work he took out a patent for that invention. One would have supposed it was the simplest thing in the world to think of, yet nobody had thought of it before. There was an action about the invention. It was held that there was a sufficiently inventive step, the courts being partly guided by the fact that no one else had thought of it before. And as the result of that patent the man made a substantial fortune. There is an example of subject matter. There are dozens of cases where a claim in respect of simple things fails, but quite a number—hundreds of cases in fact—in which they succeed.
If I may say so with the greatest respect to the draftsman of this clause, and to my noble and learned friend, with whom I have so often been associated in legal matters, I am not at all sure that either of these references to "subject
448
matter" or "the scope of any claim of the complete specification" will be of any use in a practical case before the courts. I think the best way to deal with the matter is to let the experts once more consider the two forms of words, and see whether they can find anything else to help them. I urge that they should bear in mind what I feel at the bottom of my heart are words which ought not to be omitted—words which I have heard so often in the courts—"inventive step." I do not believe that we can define the matter very much more precisely than that. Apologising for having taken up so much of your Lordships time while contributing so little to the debate, I would humbly suggest that that is the course which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should adopt.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Noble Lords will notice that this Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount is marked with a star. That means it is the first time that it has appeared in the list of Amendments. It was not in the list until this morning. I myself did not see it until five o'clock last night, and who am I to decide the merits of this matter in the few hours at my disposal when two such eminent lawyers on the Front Opposition Bench cannot agree between themselves upon it? If, therefore, the noble and learned Viscount will withdraw his Amendment for the time being, I will undertake to have consultations with my expert advisers, and with the noble and learned Viscount, between now and the next stage of the Bill with a view to seeing what can be done. We shall have to give these matters consideration, which I think the noble and learned Viscount will admit we have not had the opportunity of doing up to the present.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I just add one thing which I forgot to say when I was speaking just now? This is only a question of drafting but in a paragraph in this clause the words occur:
"does not disclose the best method of performing it."
There are many inventions which you do not perform at all.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just said is quite reasonable. On the understanding that for my own part I do press this reference to "the scope" as a better and

449
safer expression, I am content to follow the course which the noble Lord suggests. Whether we shall then on either side have gained further enlightenment as to the scope or subject matter of this dispute, I will leave it to others to decide. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved in subsection (1) to leave out all words from and including, "or on any other ground" to the end of the subsection. The noble and learned Viscount said: I hope that this time I shall secure a clean assent. As I have already said, there is a long list of grounds on any one of which a person interested may apply for a patent which has been granted to be revoked. They are set out in the various paragraphs of subsection (1), and at the end there has been added:
"or on any other ground on which a patent might immediately before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, have been repealed by scire facias."
I believe that I am right when I say that either it adds nothing whatever, because the previous list is complete or else there is something which no one has ever been able to define. I cannot think it is right that we should, after making this elaborate list with all these letters of the alphabet, add in effect "or anything else." I hope that the Government will agree, on reflection, that we might well shorten the Bill by striking out these unnecessary words.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 6.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Without reservation or qualification I accept the Amendment. I hope that that is as clear as the noble Viscount could desire.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Such an admirable practice has just been established that I hope the noble Lord will do the same next time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is purely a matter of drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("previous").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I discuss together this Amendment and the next standing in my name, though I will move them separately. They are put down to meet the point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who has himself three Amendments—one at page 10, line 15, and two at page 10, line 20. I shall be pleased, at the right time, to accept these Amendments in principle but my draftsman prefers this method of stating what the noble Earl requires. I hope, therefore, that if I move these Amendments, the noble Earl will not move his. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, leave out from the first ("the") to ("directly") in line 15 and insert ("applicant for the patent, or any person from whom he derives title, having communicated or disclosed the invention").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord for these two Amendments which, in fact, meet the points raised in my three. I shall accordingly not move those Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 18, leave out from ("the") to end of line 21 and insert ("applicant for the patent, or any person from whom he derives title, having communicated or disclosed the invention and without the consent or acquiescence of the applicant or of any person from whom he derives title;")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Before we leave this clause, may I be allowed to make a suggestion. It is on what is little more than a question of drafting, though I suggest that it is of some importance. At page 10, line 25, it is stated that:
"… a patent may be revoked by the court on the petition of a Government department, if the court is satisfied that the patentee has without reasonable cause failed to comply with a request.…"
A phrase of this kind appears repeatedly in the Bill; I think I have noticed it half a dozen times. I thought I should find somewhere a clause which stated that "patentee" in this clause refers also to the assignee of the patent who might

451
be the real person who had failed to comply, while the patentee, I suppose, is the person who is the owner of the patent. Suppose he has assigned it to a third party, that party cannot be the patentee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the assignee is an exclusive licensee, he stands for all practical purposes in the same position as the patentee.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That is precisely what I agree to, but I am not sure that the word "patentee" covers it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it would help the noble and learned Viscount, I will have this matter looked into.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am much obliged. That is all I want. There may be some answer to it.
On Question, Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Compulsory licences
15.—(1) At any time after the sealing of a patent, any person interested may apply to the comptroller for a licence under the patent upon any one or more of the grounds specified in the next following subsection.
(2) The grounds upon which application may be made for a licence under this section are as follows, that is to say:
(a) that the patented invention, being capable of being commercially worked in the United Kingdom, is not being commercially worked therein or is not being so worked to the fullest possible extent;
(d) that by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a licence or licences on reasonable terms—

(i) a market for the export of the patented article manufactured in the United Kingdom is not being supplied; or

(ii) the working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention is prevented or hindered; or

(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, the comptroller may, if satisfied that any of the grounds aforesaid are established, order the grant to the applicant of a licence under the patent upon such terms as the comptroller thinks fit:
Provided that—
(a) where the application is made on the ground that the patented invention is not being commercially worked in the United Kingdom, and it appears to the comptroller
452
that the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent has for any reason been insufficient to enable it to be so worked, he may by order adjourn the application for such period as will in his opinion give sufficient time for the invention to be so worked;
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1), after the word "after" to insert "the expiration of three years from the date of". The noble Viscount said: This is a point of substance, but I hope not a point of controversy. I feel sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment. It is common ground to all of us that the patentee should have reasonable opportunity to develop and work his patent, and it is equally common ground that, if he fails within a reasonable time to do so, other people should not be prejudiced and should have the opportunity to claim the right to work the patent. The issue is, what is a reasonable time? According to the Bill as drafted, a reasonable time is no time. The day after a patent is sealed anybody can come along and say that the patentee is not working his patent, and claim the right to work it. Obviously that cannot be the intention, although it is what the words of the clause say. We are not dealing here with a virgin field or even a field of slight experience. There has been for many years a period of grace of three years. The Bill abolishes that and substitutes no period for it. I have seen no argument yet advanced in support of that change. Tribute, and deserved tribute, has been paid to the Swan Committee, and this was a matter to which the Swan Committee directed a great deal of their attention, not only as a technical matter but as one of great practical importance. Having heard both owners and users of patents, the Committee came to the conclusion that the three years' period ought to stand. They said that to do anything else would discourage the registration of patents and the investment of capital in developing them. I do not say there was no evidence on the other side—the Government gave evidence—but they found on the evidence of the owners and users of patents that the three years which had been established and was working had withstood the test of time.
The question does not rest there. This is a subject of international convention. Under the international convention, by which we are bound and to which

453
domestic legislation has conformed, the period of three years is laid down. It is very important in these matters that we should have common patent practice all over the world. I know nothing about this technically, but, as a manufacturer, I know something about the practical side, and the policy on patents and international agreement on their use are of great importance in international trade. We cannot get out of that international convention by domestic legislation. We can penalise our own subjects, but we cannot penalise the subjects of other countries. Observe what a fantastic situation we should get into if we passed this clause. An American who makes an invention in the United States and patents it in this country—and that is a very common practice, for which this international convention exists—would have an absolute right over three years. If he did not develop his patent here within that time, no one could proceed against him. He would be able to claim the benefit of the international convention. On the other hand, an Englishman who makes an invention and patents it here would not have the benefit of the convention. He would have the benefit of it in America, but not in his own country. We want equality in these matters, and it would be indeed fantastic to give a preference to every foreign inventor and put a special penalty on every British inventor.
If it is thought, contrary to what the Swan Committee found, that it would be desirable to vary the three years and have a shorter period, then the right thing to do would be to have another international convention and obtain the views of the other great inventing countries and see whether they would agree to some other period. That period would be the rule under the international convention, and the domestic legislation of all signatory and ratifying countries would conform. That is a practical way of solving the difficulty. So far the Government have not advanced any argument in favour of this change, which is contrary to the international convention, which cannot be made binding for any foreign inventors and which is contrary to the judgment of the Swan Committee. It is the intention and desire of the Government that inventors shall patent an invention so that those inventions may become known and used by them, and,
454
if not by them, by other people. If they do not give a reasonable measure of security to an inventor, he will not patent his invention. There is a strong tendency to-day not to take out patents—perhaps not so great in this country as in the United States. A large number of people make a living out of stopping patents by all the various processes by which they can be stopped or infringed. The result is that some of the biggest firms in the United States, who are the country's biggest inventors, with great research departments, do not regard patents as worth while. They say that it is better to keep their knowledge in their own teams. They have the "know how"; they will manufacture the invention and take the lead. If they cannot keep the lead, then they are inefficient.
I do not think that is a good thing. We want knowledge spread. But we shall not get it spread—and spread by the people who are best able to spread it and to contribute—unless we give those people protection. They are not people who sterilise things; they are the kind of people who have their great design and research staffs. They spend millions of pounds on those staffs, who are not there to sterilise but, on the contrary, in order that they may be productive and creative. I say no more. Precedent, convention, practical convenience and a common aim we all have in mind. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("after") insert ("the expiration of three years from the date of").(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount has been so persuasive and his arguments have been so sound that I have much pleasure in accepting his Amendment. As this is the noble Viscount's first intervention on this Bill and he has scored a success, may I plead with him to mark that on the credit side of my account?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved in subsection (1) after "interested" to insert: "including any Government department." The noble and learned Viscount said: I

455
hope that this Amendment can be dealt with just as quickly. As the Bill is at present drawn, Clause 15 provides that "any person interested may apply to the comptroller" for the purposes there indicated. Then, when one turns on to Clause 18, there is a provision which is specially for the benefit of a Government Department. It says:
"At any time after the sealing of a patent, any Government department may apply to the comptroller for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right'",
and so on. It does not seem to me—and I think others share my view—at all desirable that where there is not particular necessity for it a Government Department should be in a different position in this respect from anybody else. It may be said that "any person interested" includes a Government Department. If that is so, then Clause 18 (1) is unnecessary. I should have thought that a simple way of dealing with the whole matter would be to insert after the words "any person interested" the words "including any Government department." When later we come to Clause 18 we shall move to leave out subsection (1) of that clause. We seek to provide merely that an application may be made either by a private person or by a Government Department. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, after ("interested") insert ("including any Government department").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry I cannot be quite so quick with this Amendment as I was on the previous one. I have two objections to this. First, I maintain that "any person" includes a Government Department. Clause 18 (1) applies expressly to a Government Department, to the exclusion of anybody else. That is why "Government Department" is mentioned there. But "any person" right the way through this Bill—and, my legal advisers tell me, in any other Bill—includes a Government Department.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The phrase is, "any person interested." I need not say that I shall pay all due respect to the advice which the noble Lord gives us as to the meaning of "any person interested." The noble Lord has a habit
456
of saying that a Government Department is "any person interested."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With respect, not quite. "Interested" has a different meaning. "Any person interested" means any person who intends to work the patent that he applies for; he must be interested in working the patent. The noble and learned Viscount will see the words in Clause 15:
"At any time after the sealing of a patent, any person interested may apply to the comptroller,"
for this, that and the other. The words "any person interested" include a Government Department who are interested to make that article. But the word "interested" means that they must be interested in the manufacture of the article for which they are applying for a licence under a patent. I am advised that "any person" includes a Government Department, and it would be wrong in this context, where a Government Department is not specifically and expressly meant, to put in the words "Government Department." It would mean an alteration right the way through the Bill, and where, in any clause other than Clause 18, a Government Department was not mentioned, it would be excluded. That is wrong, because "any person" includes a Government Department. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very dogmatic exposition of this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It was not intended to be a dogmatic exposition.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Then I will say his very clear exposition. He may be right. I am more concerned for the moment to register the fact that it is admitted by the Government that, whether the words do or do not have that effect, it is intended to include a Government Department in Clause 15. So long as that is so, then it is a mere question of what is the proper way to express it, and I have no doubt that that can be finally decided. I merely point out that, so far as Clause 15 is concerned, we cannot merely recite the words "any person" and say that a Government Department is a person. I am aware of the interpretation, but the question is whether or not,

457
if a Government Department wish to act, they can apply to the comptroller for a licence. To whom would a licence be granted? To the Government Department?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That may be so. We cannot be too clear, but possibly we can leave it for the moment. I am sure that the matter will be considered with complete impartiality by all who want to ensure that the Bill says what we both agree it means.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to omit "for a licence under the patent." The noble Lord said: I trust it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the Amendments at page 11, lines 2, 4 and 6 together. If your Lordships see fit to accept those three Amendments, then subsection (1) of Clause 15 will read—and I include, of course, the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, which we have just accepted:
"At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the sealing of a patent, any person interested may apply to the comptroller upon any one or more of the grounds specified in the next following subsection for a licence under the patent or for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right'."
What we are doing here is to bring back into the Bill the existing law as it stands under Section 27 of the present Act. If your Lordships would care to turn to Section 27 (3) (a) of the existing Act, you will see that what I am saying is quite correct. Therefore, it has been subject to some re-drafting.
We think it better that it should be stated in this way. This, perhaps, may clear up the point the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has in mind, and I hope that if I try to explain it clearly he will not accuse me of being dogmatic about it. Under this section and Section 15, a Government Department or a private person can apply for a licence or for the indorsement of a licence only if they qualify as an interested party. To qualify as an interested party it must be the intention of the Government Department or of the private individual to manufacture. It is quite clear that the Government Department who apply under this
458
particular clause for a licence to manufacture or the indorsement of a licence must themselves intend to produce and manufacture. Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept this first Amendment and the two following Amendments. I will deal with line 38 later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("comptroller") to ("upon") in line 3.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: So far as I have any right to express a view, I agree that these Amendments should be made. I am not sure that I have quite followed everything which the noble Lord has just said. I should not have thought that if a Government Department applied for a patent to be indorsed with the words "licences of right," it in the least followed that that Department proposed to manufacture. The effect of the Amendment—which I think is a useful one—is to pick up what is in Clause 18 (1) and transfer it to Clause 15 (1) (to which I think it ought to be transferred), because if one looks at Clause 18 (1) the provision is that:
"At any time after the sealing of a patent, any Government Department may apply to the comptroller for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right' upon any one or more of the grounds specified in section fifteen of this Act. …"
What the noble Lord has just proposed is to move those words into Section 15, so that it will run:
"At any time after three years, any person interested"—
which includes a Government Department—
"may apply to the comptroller for a licence under the patent or for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right.'"
Without thinking it necessary to expound it further or discuss whether a Government Department can themselves manufacture, I am willing to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would not like the noble Viscount to be under any misapprehension. He has mentioned Clause 18. I did not mention Clause 18, because I did not want to confuse the issue. Clause 18 deals with an entirely different matter from Clause 15. Clause 15 is linked with Clause 18, but the purpose of Clause 18—which it

459
would be more appropriate to discuss when we come to it—is not one of the main reasons why this subsection has been re-drafted. We now propose to bring Clause 15 into line with Clause 18 in accordance with the wishes expressed by the noble Viscount on Second Reading. We have jettisoned a good deal of the original Clause 18, and that is one of the reasons why we have re-stated the law as it stands at the present time.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think I was inaccurate. The noble Lord thought I was referring to Clause 18. I was referring to subsection (1) of Clause 18. So far as I can see—I may be wrong—subsection (1), on his own motion, is being inserted in Clause 15, and that is quite right. I had not anticipated anything about the rest of Clause 18.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 4, at end, insert ("for a licence under the patent or for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right'")
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("a licence") and insert ("an order").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2) (a) to omit "possible extent" and insert, "extent that is reasonably practicable." The noble and learned Viscount said: In moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I hope it may be thought to be a useful suggestion. We are now on the list of grounds one or other of which must be established if the comptroller is to accept an application made to him under the amended words at the beginning of Clause 15. The first of them is:
"that the patented invention, being capable of being commercially worked in the United Kingdom, is not being commercially worked therein or is not being so worked to the fullest possible extent."
It has occurred to us—and I think this is a useful thing to consider—that those words may be too extreme. It is perhaps difficult, in some cases, to assert that a patented invention is worked to the fullest possible extent. In any case, it is quite likely that though it is being worked to every extent that is reasonably practicable, it cannot be said to be
460
worked to the "fullest possible extent." Consequently, I suggest—and I have some hopes that this will not be thought to be a controversial suggestion—that what we mean is: "or is not being so worked to the extent that is reasonably practicable." Nobody, I imagine, will seek to deprive the patentee of his primary rights if, in fact, it is being worked to the extent which is reasonably practicable. I therefore respectfully suggest to those in charge that those words are to be preferred to the words to be found in the clause, which, on their strict construction, really require more than anybody would suppose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("possible extent") and insert ("extent that is reasonably practicable").—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say that I support the Amendment, which I believe is quite sound.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And I have very great pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2) (d) (ii) after "invention" to insert "which makes a substantial contribution to the art." The noble Viscount said: It is very important, as will be agreed, that we should be careful about the language we use when we define these grounds for applying for a licence. In subsection (2) we find as one ground:
"(d) that by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a licence or licences on reasonable terms.…
(ii) The working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention is prevented or hindered;…"
I suggest that it should be
"the working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention which makes a substantial contribution to the art is prevented or hindered;"
Otherwise you may have a master patentee—by which I mean a person interested in a master patent—who, to use a golfing term, stymies an important later invention impinging on the earlier. That is not really intended, and I hope that this Amendment, using language well understood among those who have anything to do with patents, will be thought to express accurately the condition that

461
has to be established. I will not argue the matter further, because it may be that this too will be regarded as a reasonable Amendment to submit, in what is after all a difficult matter to phrase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("invention") insert ("which makes a substantial contribution to the art").—(Viscount Simon.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I hope I may say without offence that I am a little in doubt whether the words suggested may not create a certain danger. In the first place, a patent may be a patent for a small matter and need not, in the ordinary way, make a substantial contribution to the art. There may be some important invention in a steam engine, for instance, and yet a patent may be obtained for it, even though it is very small. The second thing that occurs to me is that of utility. In the ordinary way I would say that a patent is bad unless it has what patent lawyers call "utility"—"utility" being used in two different senses. A patent is bad if it is for an invention which will not work in the circumstances for which it is intended or, secondly, if the alleged improvement gives no advantages over what was known before. In either of those two cases, the patent is bad. I do not want to challenge that view, but I am a little doubtful of the meaning which the courts will attribute to the words
"a patent which makes a substantial contribution to the art."
If they refer only to utility they are dangerous, because they suggest something new which has to be discovered.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is the first time I have had to take sides as between the two noble and learned Viscounts. Perhaps I may settle the matter by saying that I accept Lord Simon's Amendment, and that I will look into the point raised by Lord Maugham.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I quite agree that the matter should be looked into, in view of what my noble friend Lord Maugham has said. What I have proposed for consideration and what the noble Lord, provisionally accepts, as I understand it, is what is to be found in the Swan Report. If reference is made to the Second Interim Report of the Swan
462
Committee, page 13, paragraph 54, we find that the proposal for amending the law indicates certain considerations and says amongst other things:
"There is also the case of a subsequent inventor who has made a substantial contribution to the art, and is prevented or hampered in working his invention or process by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant him a licence on reasonable terms."
It is with that in mind that I have made my suggestion. I agree that we must look into the matter carefully before the Bill reaches another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved in subsection (2) (d) (ii), after "is" to insert "unfairly." The noble and learned Viscount said: I am not sure whether or not this Amendment is justified, but it may be useful to know. Perhaps I may repeat the words in subsection (2) (d) (ii):
"the working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention is prevented or hindered;"
What had occurred to me as worthy of consideration is that in paragraph (e) your Lordships will observe that the test is whether the patent is unfairly prejudiced. In the same way I think in Clause 17 there occur the words:
"shall not be unfairly prejudiced."
Now here the language is not thus qualified, but speaks of the working or efficient working of another patented invention being "prevented or hindered." I do not think that those words are to be found in the present law, though I dare say that they are intended to be equivalent to the present law. I do not press the matter further, but I should like consideration to be giver to it. May it not be that there will be cases in which the working of another patented invention is of necessity to some extent hindered by the refusal of the master patentee to grant a licence? It is possible that that would be good reason for requiring the hindered patent to be made the subject of a licence. It is a difficult point to decide, and I do no more than move the Amendment, in order to know whether my noble friend has considered it. I do not, of course, expect him to accept it straight away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("is") insert ("unfairly").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We have, of course, carefully considered this Amendment, and I admit that there is substance in what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I would, however, prefer to rely upon Clause 17, subsection (1) (c) which provides that the comptroller must have regard to the fact:
"that the interests of any person for the time being working or developing an invention in the United Kingdom under the protection of a patent shall not be unfairly prejudiced."
We think the words "unfairly prejudiced" are better and far more in the interests of those whom it is sought to protect than are the words proposed by the noble and learned Viscount. I hope Lord Simon will consider that those words are sufficient, because they mean that the comptroller, as I said on Second Reading, must have regard to the conditions set out in Clause 17 as they affect the subsection that the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned in this Amendment. Therefore, I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged. I certainly shall not press it at this stage. I question whether the answer suggested is complete—and for this reason. I had not failed to notice the provision in Clause 17, but the provision in Clause 17 uses the word "prejudiced." On page 11, we have two phrases—one phrase, as I have already pointed out, is "unfairly prejudiced." The other phrase, which may not mean quite the same thing, is "prevented or hindered." I think it is a question whether or not it is right to leave that quite unqualified. However, I am not pressing it now. I hope that, with that in mind, the Government will consider whether or not the suggestion is one that ought to be adopted. Very likely I am wrong. I am raising this point only because it is important that we should get things right as we go along.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (3), after "established" to insert:
"and that it is in the public interest so to do."
The noble and learned Viscount said: It seems to me that these words ought to go in. If the noble Lord will look at it for a moment, he will see that it is a proposal that, before an order is made, it must be in the public interest to make
464
it. I cannot suppose that, unless it is in the public interest, a compulsory licence should be ordered. I can understand the argument that the comptroller will act, as of course he does act, with a desire to do everything that is right and fair as between man and man, and all the rest of it. But is it not just as well, when dealing with an Act of Parliament, to provide that, in the case of a man who prima facie has a monopoly of a patent, the grant of a licence may be ordered if it is in the public interest? If it is not in the public interest, then no compulsory licence should be ordered. I should have supposed that there was an advantage in stating that explicity in the Bill in the place where these different grounds for making the order are set out. I say this without overlooking what is provided in Clause 17, which is a general qualification on the action of the comptroller. I strongly suggest to the Committee and to the noble Lord that it would be right to put in this provision in order that it may be plain that there must be a question of public interest before any compulsory licence can be granted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, after ("established") insert ("and that it is in the public interest so to do").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Our view is that the words which the noble and learned Viscount seeks to insert would be too restrictive and that the object desired is suitably met by his suggested Amendment to Clause 17, at page 13, line 23. I think that the noble and learned Viscount is well aware of this. I might term this Amendment "anti-Swan," because it goes directly contrary to what the Swan Committee in paragraphs 61 and 62 of their Second Interim Report recommend. I quote from paragraph 61, page 14, of the Second Interim Report:
"we recommend the omission of the words. … It has been represented to us—and we agree with the view—that these words merely introduce an element of uncertainty as to the meaning and effect of the subsection …"
VISCOUNT SIMON: I cannot find the passage which you are reading.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is the Second Interim Report, page 14, paragraphs 61 and 62. Perhaps I may confine myself to reading paragraph 62:

465
"For similar reasons, we suggest the omission of the words 'and it is in the public interest that a licence or licences should be granted,' in subsection (2) (d). In the absence of any indication as to the weight to be attached to what might well be the conflicting interests of the patentee and his licensees on the one hand and the consumer on the other, the reference to 'public interest' appears to us to add nothing but uncertainty to the subsection."
We think that that observation by the Swan Committee is sound. That is why we think that this Amendment is unduly restrictive and why I hope the noble and learned Viscount will, on reflection, agree with us to let the matter rest on his Amendment to Clause 17, page 13, line 23.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I will not press this Amendment, but I still think it is an important thing to consider, because the clause as now worded, as has just been pointed out, represents a change in the existing law. The existing law provides that the test that ought to be borne in mind is that it is in the public interest that a licence should be granted. I should be sorry if it were argued hereafter that, whereas that was in the previous law, it was omitted from the present Bill, and that therefore the public interest is irrelevant. I cannot think it is irrelevant. Therefore I hope that the matter will be considered from that point of view. I am not pressing my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I again ask your Lordships to consider Clause 15 (3) and how it would read with the Amendment which is now proposed:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the comptroller may, if satisfied that any of the grounds aforesaid are established, make an order in accordance with the application; and where the order is for the grant of a licence, it may require the licence to be granted upon such terms as the comptroller thinks fit."
The subsection is being re-drafted to come into line with the existing law of Section 27 of the existing Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("established") to ("upon") in line 39 and insert ("make an order in accordance with the application; and where the order is for the grant of a licence, it may require the licence to be granted")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (3), after "Kingdom" to insert:
"or is not being worked to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable."
The noble Lord said Proviso (a) of subsection (3) provides safeguards for the patentee. The purpose of the Amendment is to cover both cases referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), thus meeting certain criticisms of the noble Viscount during the Second Reading debate. A drafting Amendment is also included, consequent upon the acceptance of the noble Viscount's Amendment. I do not think this needs any further explanation. I might add that this is in line with the Amendment we accepted from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after ("Kingdom") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I recognise that, and I am grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is a consequential Amendment upon the earlier Amendments which your Lordships have been good enough to make. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("any licence granted") and insert ("an order shall not be made under this section for the indorsement of a patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The same remark applies to this Amendment. It is consequential upon previous Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, after ("supplied") insert ("and any licence granted under this section on that ground").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The reason for the next Amendment is, that under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 15, an applicant who applies on the ground that he is prevented or hindered from using his own patent by the failure of the patentee of the patent under which a licence is sought to grant him a licence under the patent on reasonable terms, must be able and willing to

467
give the other patentee a licence under his own patent on reasonable terms. In others words, this is attempting reciprocity, and I think you will agree that this right to a licence should be available to the licensees of the patentee of the other patent as well as to the patentee. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after ("patentee") insert ("and his licensees").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 15 (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 19, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Provisions as to licences under Section 15
(4) Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the principal Act shall apply to any licence (other than an exclusive licence) granted in pursuance of an order under the last foregoing section as it applies to a licence granted by virtue of the said section twenty-four.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "an exclusive" and insert "a." The noble Lord said: The Amendment at line 7 and the one at line 11 are really drafting Amendments, to avoid using the words "exclusive licence" and at the same time to avoid possible confusion with these words where used elsewhere in the Bill. The Amendments are really consequential on, and made for similar reasons to, a previous Amendment I have moved. With that explanation I hope you will accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("an exclusive") and insert ("a").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 11, at end insert ("or to grant licences under the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) to leave out
468
"(other than an exclusive licence)." The noble Lord said: Section 24 (1) (d) of the Act enables a licensee under a patent indorsed "licences of right" to call upon the patentee to institute infringement proceedings for infringement of the patent, and, if the latter does not do so within two months, the licensee may himself institute proceedings. Subsection (4) of this clause makes this provision equally applicable where the comptroller has granted a compulsory licence under Clause 15, except where such licence is exclusive. This exception was thought right in view of the provisions of Clause 34 which will entitle an exclusive licensee to take infringement proceedings. There may be cases, however, where an exclusive licensee from the comptroller could not avail himself of Clause 34, the reason being that his licence would not fall within the terms of subsection (3) of Clause 34. It is accordingly proposed, although I admit there is some slight overlap here, to make the position clear by cancelling the exception in parenthesis in Clause 16 (4), thus making the subsection applicable to all licences from the comptroller. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, leave out from ("licence") to ("granted") in line 16.—(Lord Lucas of Chillvorth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Exercise of powers on applications under s. 15
17.—(1) The powers of the comptroller upon an application under section fifteen of this Act shall be exercised with a view to securing the following general purposes, that is to say:—
(a) that inventions which can be worked on a commercial scale in the United Kingdom shall be worked therein without undue delay and to the fullest possible extent;
(2) Subject to the foregoing subsection, the comptroller shall, in determining whether to make an order in pursuance of any such application, take account of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention;
VISCOUNT SIMONhad given Notice of an Amendment to subsection (1) (a), after "Kingdom" to insert "and which should in the public interest be so worked." The

469
noble and learned Viscount said: In view of what has been said earlier, I do not move this Amendment now.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount can, of course, please himself, but if he does not move it we shall move it later on.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Then I beg to move this Amendment, and I do so with some confidence that the Government may accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, after ("Kingdom") insert ("and which should in the public interest be so worked").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount's confidence is not misplaced. I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("possible extent") and insert ("extent that is reasonably practicable").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) at the beginning to insert:
"the nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment which I think is self-explanatory, is put down to meet a criticism made by the noble and learned Viscount. I therefore propose it with some hope that he will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
Clause 18:
indorsement of patent on application of Government department.
18.—(1) At any time after the sealing of a patent, any Government department may apply the comptroller for the indorsement of the patent with the words "licences of right" upon any one or more of the grounds specified in section fifteen of this Act; and the comptroller may, if satisfied that any of those
470
grounds are established, order the patent to be indorsed accordingly.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Viscount said: I am in a slightly difficult position here. I think I had better move the Amendment which stands in my name, although the main discussion will, no doubt, come upon Lord Lucas's Amendment. As your Lordships see, I have a modest Amendment in the first instance—namely, to strike out subsection (1). Lord Lucas has an Amendment to strike out the whole clause. If Lord Lucas's activities stopped there, I should think them very useful and helpful; but he goes on to propose the insertion in place of Clause 18 of nearly as odd a clause, upon which we shall have a good deal to say. I could have been completely silent here except for the fact that, while Lord Lucas strikes out subsection (1) with one hand, he restores it in a somewhat modified form in subsection (1) of his substituted Clause 18. Therefore, I think I had better say a word about subsection (1). Whether we have it in its original form or in the form which Lord Lucas proposes to substitute, it gives to a Government Department an entirely new power, which they have not got at present, to request the comptroller to indorse a patent "licences of right." But we have made an important Amendment, with respect to both the general power and on the time limit. The time limit of three years has been restored; therefore—and I speak subject to correction on this point—even if we were to pass Clause 18, either as it stands in the Bill or in the form of Lord Lucas's amended draft which appears in the Marshalled List, there would be no power to do anything within the period of grace of three years.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I intervene to help the noble Viscount? When we get to my Amendment, I am going to ask leave of the Committee to introduce a Manuscript Amendment to my Amendment to cover exactly the point which the noble Viscount has just raised. Now that we have accepted the noble Viscount's previous Amendment for a delaying period of three years, it must ipso facto go into subsection (1) of the proposed new clause which I have put down here.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thank the noble Lord. That relieves me of any

471
argument on that point. But we are still left with the question of the new power of a Government Department to make application to the comptroller to indorse a patent "licences of right" after the expiry of a period of grace of three years. That would be the position. Here, again, I would appeal to the Government, whose representatives have followed my argument on Clause 15—it was not indeed my argument but that of the Swan Committee. Here, again, I think I am right in saying that we have a considered finding of the Swan Committee. They recommended that there should not be this power which the Government are now seeking to introduce. They were against the Government having the right to apply for an indorsement of this kind, because they thought it would weaken the efficiency of the patent system in stimulating research and in having patents developed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Viscount give me the reference? Is the noble Viscount referring to the Swan Committee's comment about universal adoption of the system of "licences of right"?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: At what paragraph do we find that?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think it is in the final portion of the Swan Committee's Report, at the point where they make general observations about the advisability of universal application of the system of indorsing licensed patents "licences of right."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I can summarise it in this way. The Committee were against this proposal because they thought that such a general power given on the instigation of a Government Department militated against the development of patents. I think I should be putting it rightly if I said that the view of the Swan Committee—and I am bound to say that in my opinion it is right—was that if an invention was not being properly worked, the right course was for application to be made under Clause 15. That application can be made either by an individual or by the Government, or Government Department, if the Government Department want to have worked or to work a patent which they say is not being reasonably worked. I want to strike
472
out subsection (1) because I say it is unnecessary, in that all the power that there ought to be exists, and exists simply under Clause 15, and to give the Government this special power is distinctly contrary to the spirit, and, I think, the letter of the recommendations contained in the Swan Report. I therefore beg to move to strike out subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (1).—(Viscount Viscount Swinton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the whole question which is raised here were discussed on this Amendment. At any rate, I trust that if I deal with it now I shall not fall foul of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. It is doubtless quite obvious to the noble Viscount that I must resist this Amendment. I shall have to ask your Lordships to bear with me because this is a matter which requires some detailed explanation. I think I must look back and say that the origin of our trouble with this Bill lay in the fact that when the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, was going through another place all effective references to patents were taken from it under the pressure of the Opposition, and while subsection (5), of Section 10, of that Act does not prohibit the Monopolies Commission from making any comment they like about the restrictive operation of a patent or patent agreement it effectively prevents the appropriate authority from taking any action.
I will refresh your Lordships' memories by reading the relevant section. It is very short. Subsection 5, of Section 10, of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, states:
"Nothing in any order of a competent authority under this section shall have effect so as to restrict the restraining of any infringement of a United Kingdom patent or so as to restrict any person as to the conditions which he attaches to a licence to do anything the doing of which, but for the licence, would be an infringement of a United Kingdom patent."
The argument which the Opposition in another place raised on this was that the procedure of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act was not appropriate to patents. There existed a machine—an existing Patent Act—it was stated, and

473
it was known that this Bill was coming forward. Therefore, although the Monopolies Commission can make any Report they like about restrictive practices in connection with patents, or patent agreements, it is left to this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to impose sanctions.
I now revert for one moment to Clause 15, which we have just discussed. Under subsection (1), a Government Department can apply for a licence or for the endorsement of a licence if they intend to work it. If they do not intend to work it, and apply only for the protection of the public right, the Department have to apply under Clause 18. That is the difference between the two.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not follow that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble and learned Viscount will bear with me, I will answer that question afterwards.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is not an easy subject.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is just as difficult for me as it is for the noble and learned Viscount. The substance of the new clause in my Amendment is that a Government Department which is not an interested party may apply—and I stress this—only if they can satisfy the conditions of Clause 15 (2). The essential difference between Clauses 15 (1) and 18 (1) is that in the first a Government Department can apply for a licence to operate under a patent or for the indorsement of a patent "licences of right" where the intention is to become technically an interested party and to operate themselves. In that regard it has to make good in substance the conditions imposed in Clause 15 (2). Under Clause 18 (1) the Department can do three things without having any other interest than the public interest. They can apply to the comptroller for the indorsement of a patent "licences of right," for the granting of a licence to a third party, and—and this is the most important perhaps—for the alteration or modification or cancellation of any restrictive clause of a patent agreement so long as that has been reported upon by the Monopolies Commission. Again, under Clause 18 (1), the Department can make an application only if they satisfy all the requirements of Clause 15 (2).
474
If noble Lords will read carefully the Amendment, they will see what concessions the Government have made to the criticisms made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on Second Reading. They have jettisoned practically the whole of the original clause. I maintain that this is necessary. Parliament has decided that there shall be a Monopolies Commission to inquire into restrictive practices. In its wisdom or unwisdom (and I am not going to say which) Parliament took out of the Monopolies Act all sanctions or penalties imposed in relation to patents or patent agreements, and relied in this regard upon this Bill. The Government must have this power, which is now limited much more than was proposed in the original draft, because we shall not be able to do anything at all with sanctions under the Monopolies Act. Again, may I impress upon the House that the conditions in Clauses 15 (3) and 15 (6), and the conditions in Clauses 16, and 17, apply to any applications by a Government Department under Clause 18. They must meet all the conditions. Thus, all Clause 18 does is to enable a Government Department to do something which they cannot do under Clause 15 because they are not an interested party. I hope that after due consideration your Lordships will accept my Amendment and that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will withdraw his.
On the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I may say that the Swan Committee considered whether it was in the public interest that all patents should be indorsed "licences of right." The Committee rejected that and the Government reject it. We agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I can assure him that my proposed new, clause does not reintroduce this, because licences of right under Clauses 15 (1) and 18 (1) are subject to the restrictions to which I have referred. To take an example, subsection (2) of the new clause provides that an application to have an agreement cancelled or modified can be made only if the Monopolies Commission have said so. That is not a directive to the comptroller. On any application the comptroller may take into consideration everything that he is empowered to, and obliged to, under Cause 15 (3) and (6) and Clauses 16 and 17. In the last analysis the comptroller may say:

475
"Although you apply, and I do not query what you say; though you have prayed in aid, and possibly based your application upon, the report of the Monopolies Commission, I do not think this is the appropriate remedy. Therefore, I suggest that the remedy is found in another direction."
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Will the noble Lord explain something to me in which I have no doubt I am stupid? At the moment I cannot quite see the concrete case which I am trying to visualise, of a patent being used in an improper way, or in a way to which the Government at the time object. I cannot see what particular case it is which is not open to be attacked under Clause 15 of the Bill. What are the Government afraid of?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Under Clause 15 (2) a Government Department can make an application for two things. They can make application for a licence or for an indorsement of a licence. They have got to be an interested party to do either one or the other. They cannot apply under Clause 15 for the alteration of an agreement. There is one proviso which perhaps I should mention. The only person who can apply for the alteration of an agreement is an existing licensee, who can apply under Clause 16; a Government Department can apply under Clause 15 only if they intend to operate the patent themselves.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I only want to reply to what I thought was the answer to this. I thought I followed what the noble Lord was saying. The answer is that Clause 15 (1) ought to be amended substantially in the way suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, by putting after "any person interested" the words "or any Government Department." If that were done, I still cannot see the practical danger that we are being asked to provide against by Clause 18.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble and learned Viscount will now allow me to continue, I think I can get to it. I had not quite finished when he interrupted me. There may be conditions where the Government may want to take action, following a report of a Monopolies Commission, that would not fall under
476
anything in Clause 15. As this Bill tightens the position, there may be restrictive practices brought into patent agreements. May I cite a hypothetical case?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That is what we want, I think.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will do my best. It may well be that the Government, following a report of a Monopolies Commission, may say that all price maintenance agreements are illegal. But it may be put into a patent that it will be a condition of the grant of a licence, if the licensee agrees, that the article he manufactures will be sold only at a price previously agreed by a trade association. If the Monopolies Commission investigating such a case came to the conclusion that such a clause in a patent agreement was against the public interest, and was restrictive under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, no action could be taken, because it affects a patent, owing to Section 10 (5). That is one of the reasons for subsection (2) of Clause 18.
I am advised that it is necessary to have this Clause 18 to differentiate between where a Government Department are an interested party, and intend to operate the patent, and where they act under a Monopolies Commission recommendation as the custodians of the public interest. The noble and learned Viscount quoted Mr. Kenneth Swan. I would like to direct your Lordships' attention to paragraph 5 of the Second Interim Report, where the Swan Committee support the Government on Clause 18. They there say:
"It is easy to overestimate the part played by patents in creating and maintaining cartels, whether national or international. Several of the most important monopolies in this country exist with little or no help from patents, and it seems likely that, even where patents do form an important element in cartel arrangements, these arrangements could be reconstituted upon some other basis, even if patents were totally abolished. Where firms find it convenient and profitable to work together in regulating output and fixing prices, or where one or a few powerful firms desire to dominate smaller rivals, they will make use of whatever means come to hand to cement their agreements. Patents are often an available means, but they are not the only one. No conceivable reform of the patent system, nor even its total abolition, would, by itself, solve the problem of monopoly in modern industry. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently clear that patents do often play a part in the

477
formation and maintenance of cartels, and that this use of patents is foreign, and may be inimical to, the purposes for which the patent system was instituted. It is not within our sphere to pronounce upon the merits and defects of cartels as such, but we are of opinion that it is wrong in principle that a patent should be used to establish a monopoly wider in scope and longer in duration than that conferred by a patent in itself, and it is obviously desirable that the patent law should keep in step with any measures which may be adopted in the future to limit or control monopoly in the public interest."
That is why it is necessary for us to have this new clause. I trust that I have explained the matter fully and satisfactorily to your Lordships. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will withdraw his Amendment, and that when I come to move the Amendment I have down the Committee will accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): May I add one word in answer to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham? I think it will help to clear the position. If the words which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, had proposed at Clause 15, line 2, had been "or any Government Department," then Clause 18, except that part which deals with the Monopolies Commission, would be unnecessary. But the words he proposed were not, "or any Government Department," but "including any Government Department." Therefore he is dealing only with a Government Department which is, in the technical sense of the word, an interested party. I thought it might be convenient to point that out, because I think it is the answer to the point that Lord Maugham made.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am obliged.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am glad the Lord Chancellor made that observation. The same point had occurred to me. We can, of course, review the exact words of Clause 15, and, if right, we can put in the words, "or any Government Department." I agree that that would clear up that matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the pains which he has taken to explain what is now proposed to take the place of the present Clause 18. After all, what we have to do is to consider whether his new Amendment is one which should be adopted. I will not spend time arguing whether my noble friend Lord Swinton is right or not in moving to leave out subsection (1),
478
because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is moving to leave out the whole of Clause 18. Therefore, I take it that it is common ground that subsection (1) will disappear.
I will address myself briefly to the new proposal in the name of the noble Lord opposite, which refers to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. I think the issue is capable of being stated in fairly simple terms. May I first remind the Committee of one feature of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act of last year which has not been mentioned at all? I quite agree that its application to patents was restricted, but so far as the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act has an operation, it is of this kind: it enables the competent authorities in certain cases to make an order, but it goes on to say in subsection (7) of Section 10:
"The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House."
In other words, the Act of last year, while no doubt it provided very useful powers in Government Departments to draw up various forms of order in the light of a report of the Monopolies Commission, gave no power at all to affect anybody's rights unless it were by an order the draft of which had been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by Resolution in each House. That is the condition which the Act thought it right to lay down.
When I look at the proposed new Clause 18, I do not find anything about that at all. The clause is so drawn as to have operation without either House of Parliament having anything to do with it at all. The conditions, and the only conditions, laid down, as the Committee will see, are these: first, there must have been a report by the Monopolies Commission in which a patent has been referred to. If a report from the Monopolies Commission refers to a patent, that is all that is required under that head. The next thing is that the report must allege that condition; in licences granted by the patentee operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest. If those two conditions are satisfied, then, according to the Government's new clause, a Government Department

479
may, basing itself on those two facts and no others, apply to the comptroller and, if this clause is adopted, the comptroller will be authorised to say: "Very well, you having applied I am prepared to endorse the patent 'licences of right.'" Now it must be perfectly obvious to everybody who has followed this matter, that that simply means by-passing Parliament altogether and rejecting the original scheme—which was contained in the Monopolies Act of last year and which, as I have pointed out, required a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament—and saying: "No; it is enough that we can get from the Monopolies Commission a report which refers to a patent, if the report takes the view that it will operate against the public interest." I am just as much alive as anybody to the desirability of preventing an improperly restrictive practice. I am not arguing in favour of any improper practice being employed by anybody because of a monopoly. I am examining the Government's own clause, and I am saying that it will not work and ought not to be adopted. I do not know whether everybody has quite appreciated that the Monopolies Commission do not sit as a Royal Commission sits, on appointed days in an appointed room and have before them one witness after another, examined and cross-examined.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Viscount will forgive me, he is now embarking upon a discussion of Clause 21 of this Bill, to which there is an Amendment upon the Marshalled List to do just what he is saying.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think that what I am saying is relevant. The clause I am discussing refers to a report of the Monopolies Commission, and I am observing that a report of the Monopolies Commission is not a report which is drawn up on testimony given by witness after witness before the members of the Commission. It is the result—and quite properly—of what I may call a roving inquiry. It usually involves the issue of a questionnaire to a particular trade and the collection of evidence. It is perfectly proper for the Commission to use any statistics they come across which they think are trustworthy. I cannot agree that, because the Commission, so constituted, make a report, it follows that what the report contains should be the basis
480
of special action to be taken by a Government Department in order to get an indorsement of this sort on a licence or the grant of a licence to an individual. The machine does not appear to me to work, and consequently, though I quite appreciate the anxiety of the noble Lord and others to find a clause which will do what is wanted, it does not seem to me that this form of clause could be justified at all.
Because a Government Department have a report of the Monopolies Commission, which is not based upon any judicial inquiry, or an inquiry of the nature of a judicial inquiry—although, no doubt, the Commission includes the most estimable people—which mentions a patent and says that in the Commission's opinion there are conditions in licences granted which operate against the public interest, why should that be taken as giving special jurisdiction to that Government Department to apply to the comptroller? That is the question I am asking, and I point out that hitherto nothing could be done based upon a report of the Monopolies Commission unless it was done by an order which was approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. An entirely new method is being adopted for using the report—no doubt very carefully arrived at by the Monopolies Commission. I should not have thought that this was a satisfactory way of dealing with the difficulty, although I am glad, of course, that the Government are abandoning their original clause. I made some observations on the Second Reading which did not seem to me capable of being resisted and so it has turned out. The question is: Have you a satisfactory scheme in what you are proposing now? You say: "Show me the report of the Monopolies Commission which refers to the fact, show me that it contains a recommendation as to how the conditions in the licence granted to the patentee may be expected to operate. Show me those two things and that is enough." Is there anything else?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes—quite a lot. All the conditions of Clause 15 (2) have to be satisfied at the same time. May I draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention in this connection to subsection (1) of my proposed new clause, which reads:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of section fifteen of this Act, any Government department

481
may, at any time after the sealing of the patent, apply to the comptroller upon any one or more of the grounds specified in subsection (2) of that section.…"
No application under Clause 18 (1) can be made to the comptroller unless it satisfies the conditions set out in Clause 15 (2). That is the material difference, and that is the safeguard.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the noble Lord for what he says, but there is evidently a misunderstanding. I was talking about a report of the Monopolies Commission. I was not aware that that part of the Government Amendment to which I have just been referred had anything whatever to do with the Monopolies Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; all of it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I am unable to understand it. The new clause says:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of section fifteen of this Act, any Government department may, at any time after the sealing of the patent …"
and so on. So far, there does not appear to be anything—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There seems to be a conflict in the matter of drafting. I am informed that the noble and learned Viscount should read the first line of subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause 18, which is worded as follows:
"Where an application is made under this section in respect of a patent. …"
That implies that all applications under this clause have to be made in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 15.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I fully understand what he says. But it does not really touch the point I was making. The noble Lord says that the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 15 apply; but the question is not that. It is: What are the circumstances in which a Government Department are to be given the special right, which nobody else is to have, of applying to the comptroller because they find that the Monopolies Commission has made a certain report? I do not see why a Government. Department should have that special right when they are relying
482
upon the report of the Monopolies Commission, which has never had any sort of Parliamentary approval at all. The Monopolies Commission may simply make a report; or may make a report which is approved by Resolution of the House of Commons. I can understand the argument that if the second condition is to work these powers should be given. But what I do not understand is how it can be justifiable to say that, if the Monopolies Commission make a report, honestly but without any of the ordinary machinery which a court of justice has at its disposal for ascertaining facts, even though the House of Commons may afterwards disapprove of the report, there is none the less the right to take this special proceeding because the matter belongs to the Department of the comptroller. That is my difficulty, and I think it is right to express it frankly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may take some little part in this controversy. I have sat very silent because I have been so impressed by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has mastered and handled this complicated subject, and I am afraid that by butting in I may spoil some of his good work. Notwithstanding that, I think there is an element of confusion which needs to be cleared up. The proposal under Clause 15 is that a Government Department which may be an interested party shall be able to apply to the comptroller for indorsement of a patent with the words "licences of right," or for a licence to manufacture to be given to them. But Clause 15 as at present drafted does not apply to a Government Department which is not an interested party. We can see that there may be cases in which a Government Department, even though not an interested party and not itself intending to manufacture or exploit, yet should be able to go to the comptroller and make application for an endorsement of "licences of right."
After all, this is an unfamiliar rôle for your Lordships. I do not know whether you think that manufacture by a Government Department is necessarily cheaper or more efficient than manufacture by an individual. It may be thought that it is in the public interest that a patent should be exploited which is not being properly exploited. Or it may be

483
thought that exploitation should not be by the Government Department but by someone else. Here I am not quite sure about what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. I think it is desirable that we should all have an opportunity of considering the new Clause 18, because there is great confusion. Although the clause embraces monopoly cases it extends to other cases. I read Clause 18 (1) as meaning that application can be made under this, not only in a case where the Monopolies Commission have pronounced on the matter but in any event, whether they have pronounced or not. Lord Lucas was right in saying that it is obvious that when you come to subsection (2), where the subject matter with which you are dealing is known, and where there has been a report by the Monopolies Commission, the attributes and conditions of Clause 15 and the rest apply.
I turn now to this monopoly question and the Monopolies Commission. When this body was set up we had grave doubts (there is no secret about this; it started in the days of the Coalition Government) as to what sanctions we were to have, and how we were to see that the sanctions were fairly provided for. And what we finally decided, rightly or wrongly, was to have what I may call the Parliamentary sanction. The Monopolies Commission make their report and, if the Minister desires to act on that report, he promulgates an order; then, if the order is agreed affirmatively by both Houses of Parliament, the sanction can be imposed. I was never satisfied or clear in my mind as to whether that was very wise, because it would be very difficult for Parliament to address itself to a detailed consideration of that matter. The alternative view, which some of us always preferred, was to have some kind of a judicial proceeding. What we propose in this case is the judicial avenue.
If the Monopolies Commission have reported, instead of having the Parliamentary method of the sanction which follows from that, we propose to have the judicial avenue. You then go and apply to the comptroller who, of course, is perfectly entitled to grant or not to grant, as in his discretion he thinks right, the relief for which you are asking. From the comptroller you can appeal to the Patent Tribunal which, in practice, if this
484
Bill goes through, will be a judge appointed to deal inter alia with matters of this sort. If the comptroller, or the Tribunal (if the matter goes to the Tribunal) think it right and proper and that the circumstances are made out, then they can grant the relief. I agree that that is quite a different method of approach from the Parliamentary method of approach, but it may be that it is a more appropriate method of approach, because the comptroller or the Tribunal will be able to give a more detailed and more exact consideration to the matter than would probably be open to Parliament. Therefore, it may be that the matter would be better dealt with in that way.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not intervene in any way to reply to the point. I appreciate the contrast which the noble and learned Viscount makes. Nobody doubts that the comptroller will endeavour to discharge his duties impartially. But can one describe an application made by a Government Department, based on something contained in the Monopolies Commission report to the comptroller, as an application to the comptroller in his judicial character? Surely, he hears no evidence; he does not know the value that should be attached to what is put before him. He has merely to look at this report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That applies to the Parliamentary sanction, just as it does to the other. When we come to Clause 21, we are going to have a discussion as to what extent the findings of the Monopolies Commission ought to be conclusive or merely prima facie, or on what conditions they should be either one or the other. I do not want to anticipate the discussion which will take place on Clause 21, except to say this: that I am frankly anxious to avoid a case which has been decided by the Monopolies Commission being argued all over again. I think it right to say this. No regard should be paid to the findings of the Monopolies Commission, as either prima facie or conclusive, unless certain points are observed—for instance whether the evidence was given on oath. Without committing myself, I suggest that there might be the opportunity of cross-examination, of giving evidence, or that sort of thing. Noble Lords will find that I shall be quite amenable upon that

485
matter when we come to consider Clause 21, because I realise the difficulties here involved.
What I should like to make plain is this. Always assuming that you have findings which are subject to some of the kinds of conditions I have mentioned, the proposal is, that a Government Department can go to the comptroller in his judicial capacity. Most certainly if you appeal from the comptroller to the special Tribunal, you then have the Tribunal in their judicial capacity, because they have no other. They will decide the case as they think best. Let us bear this in mind. This Clause 18 means only that you can apply under Clause 15, and a condition of a successful application under Clause 15 is that you have to establish affirmatively the existence of one of the grounds of relief which are set out in Clause 15. That is the position, as I understand it.
I think it is interesting to bear in mind this point which makes it plain. As I said before, if we had the words "or any Government Department," then we should want Clause 18, or something like Clause 18, for two purposes—and two purposes only. The first would be that we should have to have power to ask for a licence to be granted to a nominee of the Department; secondly, we should want power to modify conditions in consequence of a report of the Monopolies Commission—conditions contained in a licence. We should want power to do that, always assuming that the proper stipulations were observed as to the way in which the Monopolies Commission had pronounced in taking evidence and that sort of thing. I suggest this to the noble Viscount, because this is not a matter on which there should be any Party difference: we all want to do the right thing, and get this clear. If you will let us have this clause at this stage, with the Amendment which has been indicated about the three years, it would be useful to look at the matter again as a whole when we come to Clause 21. Then, when we reach Clause 21, we shall really see the picture as a whole, and we will then consider what stipulations we should put in as to the conditions under which the Monopolies Commission's findings are either conclusive or prima facie evidence. If we have this clause and look
486
at it in print, we shall be able to consider it, we shall ask our advisers what they think about it and we shall be able to ascertain the views of those experienced people who took part on the Swan Committee as to how far this clause meets their apprehensions. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to let us have this clause now, because I am anxious to have this clause available when we come to consider Clause 21.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree that this is not a Party matter. On the other hand, it does seem to me to be a most important one. The difficulty I feel about agreeing to the Lord Chancellor's suggestion—and I have listened to the whole of this debate as impartially as I can—is that it is all wrong to have Clause 18 at all. I will explain why. I am a little embarrassed at discussing Clause 18 without considering Cause 21. I will say this at once, if I am asked to give Clause 18 as paving the way for Clause 21: that I regard Clause 21 as an impossible clause. I think it fair to say that now. As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, I think that Clause 21 would lead us to a right decision about what we should do with Clause 18. What Clause 21 proposes to do is to say that in certain cases a finding by the Monopolies Commission, which is not a judicial body at all, is to be accepted as conclusive evidence. That seems to me to be an impossible basis on which to found any clause—either Clause 18 or Clause 21—and for this reason: that this is a Commission with a roving inquiry; it is directing its mind to very broad considerations, as to whether some great firm or combination of firms which carries more than one-third of the business of the country or of a particular part the country, is engaged in restrictive practices which are contrary to public interest.
The first thing that a tribunal of that kind should do—that is, if it is to do its work well—is to try and get people round the table. Some monopolies are very bad, some are harmless, and some monopolies or quasi-monopolies are extremely good and valuable. The great ding is to find out how it works. Therefore you want people to talk frankly. That is not at all the atmosphere of a law court. The Commission may send out a questionnaire

487
which asks people to come and have a talk; and it may send its members wandering through the country to see how the business is carried out. That is the right way for a monopoly inquiry to conduct its business. But if, out of that and some reference to a patent—and patents are almost sure to come into this inquiry in one way or another—a claim is to be founded, in which the report is to be taken as conclusive and people are to lose their valuable patent rights, then obviously the whole inquiry is going to be conducted at arm's length, everybody will be put on the defensive and an entirely wrong atmosphere will be created.
I therefore think (and I cannot get away from it) that Clause 18 is only in this Bill because of the Monopolies Commission. I consider that the powers the Government should have ought to be defined in Clause 15, and there ought not to be a separate clause here at all. It may well be that when a Government Department is not an interested party it should have the right, in the public interest, where a particular patent is not being worked, to apply for a licence for an individual or indeed for a licence of right, which I gather means a general power to use it. That may be a perfectly tenable proposition, and I thought that was the object Lord Lucas had in submitting his Amendment about licences of right being granted at the instance of a Government Department. But if the suggestion is that a Government Department ought to have the right to apply to the comptroller because one of the mischiefs under Clause 15 is taking place—and it is admitted that Clause 15 has to be satisfied, otherwise, Monopolies Commission or no Monopolies Commission, the Government Department's case falls to the ground—what more is required except to put into Clause 15 words to the effect that a Government Department, on behalf of public interest, may apply? Then, if something has taken place before a Monoplies Tribunal, if some reason has come out there which properly moves the Government Department to do something, they can make that the ground of their application and say, "We are doing this because we have been put on to it by the Monopolies Commission." But of course, they must prove their case.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I interrupt the noble Viscount only the better to follow his argument, because nothing at present in Clause 15 (2) can give anyone—Government Department or anyone else—the right to apply for an alteration of the conditions of an existing agreement. How would he propose to overcome that difficulty? There is no right except the right I have mentioned just now in regard to an existing licensee under Clause 16. But nobody can apply for the alteration of an existing agreement under Clause 15. The Monopolies Commission may report, and that is the instrument which Parliament has decided should apply.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If there were a case for asking to have a licence varied at the instance of a Government Department, then I would give the power to the Government Department so to apply under Clause 15. But I would certainly say that the Government Department must prove their case. As the Lord Chancellor has said, this is a judicial proceeding. The Monopolies Tribunal is not at all a judicial proceeding. I would say that that may be a good power to give to a Government Department—namely, the power to apply, and then to satisfy by evidence. It may very well be that by reason of the way in which the business was done the Government Department could say to the patentee, "If you do not vary these conditions I shall apply to the judicial tribunal, the comptroller, and if necessary appeal to the judge, for a licence to indorse your patent for licences of right." I should have thought that that was the way it should be done. I agreed with the noble Lord when he cited the Swan Committee as saying that, if the law was changed, then the patent practice ought to come into conformity with the law. I would certainly agree to that. But by setting up a Monopolies Tribunal we have not altered the law; we have not turned the Monopolies Tribunal into a law maker. There can be only one law maker and that is Parliament, and there can be only one judicial authority—namely, the law courts of this country, to which we are all amenable.
We have laid down in the Monopolies Act, that if the Minister brings a matter to Parliament and secures a Resolution of, I think, both Houses of Parliament, approving certain action being taken,

489
then that has the force of law and he can compel the party affected to do what Parliament has authorised. If a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament has laid down that something should be done, it is equivalent to an Act of Parliament, of which the comptroller and the court must take notice. But nothing else is—no mere report of the Tribunal. Therefore, I say that the right thing to do is not to pursue this clause. If we do not pass this clause now, we shall not be precluded from discussing Clause 21, because Clause 21 deals with what attention has to be paid when applications are made under Clauses 15 or 16.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When a report of the Monopoly Committee is prayed in aid.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: in proceedings.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Based on a report.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Therefore we are not in the least precluded from considering Clause 21, when we come to it. We disliked Clause 18 very much as it stood and should certainly have moved to strike it out. The noble Lord has moved to strike it out entirely. I think we are on an Amendment of mine, which is merely to strike out subsection (1). I should have thought that the best course for the Committee to take would be to strike out Clause 18, and not to insert the proposed new clause. Then when we come to the Report stage we can put down the right Amendments to Clause 15, which is the clause under which the Government Department or anyone else ought to make their applications. That clause gives the Government Department the right which is proposed, and which certainly seems proper, to act in the public interest and to ask for indorsement, and also gives the Government Department the right to go to the comptroller and to the court to ask within Clause 15 (under which everything has to come) that they may have power to include cancellation or modification of conditions in an application. I believe that such a course would be more consistent with the present feeling of the Committee on this point. If that course is not followed, we shall probably have to strike out this clause during the Report stage, and we should, in a sense, preclude ourselves, when we get to the Report stage, if we
490
pass this now, from putting in the right Amendments—as I think they are—to Clause 15.
6.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I be allowed to add just one or two words with a view to clarifying this matter? I should be sorry if we had any quarrel about this, but I think there is a good deal of misapprehension. So far as this clause is concerned, it has nothing whatever to do with evidence or the accepting of evidence by the Monopolies Commission. It is consistent with this clause that when you get to Clause 21 you should strike out the words "conclusive" or "prima fade" and have the whole clause approved again. The proposed new subsection (2) simply defines the classes of case in regard to which you may make application. It reads:
"Where an application is made under this section in respect of a patent which has been referred to in a report of he Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Corn mission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, and according to that report, or any resolution passed by the House of Commons in relation thereto, any conditions in licences granted by the patentee under the patent operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest, the application may consist of or induce an application for the cancellation or modification of any such conditions."
The point which I am seeking to make—and which I think has rather been lost sight of—is that that is simply defining classes of cases in which an application may be made. When we come to Clause 21, we consider evidence on which an application is to be based, and in clue course your Lordships can do what you will about that clause. For the moment, we are simply saying that the only case in which you can apply for cancellation or modification of conditions contained in a patent is where that patent has been referred to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission. That is all we are saying. That is the only point on this subsection, and it dates back to the interjection of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, earlier.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (1) of Clause 18 is:
"for the grant to any person specified in the application of a licence under the patent."
First you want that. Secondly, in that class of cases where there has been reference to the Monopolies and Restric-

491
tive Practices Commission, you want to have permission to apply for the alteration of the conditions in the patent. I am saying to your Lordships that it would perhaps be well if we spent a little more time considering this matter, and looked at it again. Certainly there seems to be a good deal of obscurity about it. If your Lordships pass this clause now, you will be free when you come to Clause 21 to make excisions. As I have said, it deals with the question of evidence. There is an Amendment in the Marshalled List by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to strike out "conclusive" and insert "prima facie." There are also a whole series of Amendments by the Government which will be found at the bottom of page 7 of the Marshalled List and at the top of page 8. Your Lordships can, if you wish, greatly extend the conditions.
But I feel that if you act now and strike out Clause 18 before you have considered Clause 21 there is grave danger of there being a real misapprehension as to what is being done. If you follow out my suggestion, it will not preclude any action which you may desire to take on the Report stage when you see the picture of Clause 18 and Clause 21 together. I do respectfully submit to your Lordships—and I have given this matter a great deal of thought—that it would be a great mistake to act now unless and until we have considered Clause 21. If your Lordships wish to have a little further time to consider this matter—and you may well so desire—I can tell you that it is intended that this debate should shortly be adjourned. We have a certain amount of other Business which I hope will be largely formal. It may, perhaps, if I may suggest it, be desirable that at this stage we should adjourn without voting on this Amendment, and when the matter is considered later it is possible that some of your Lordships may take a rather different view from that which you appear to be taking to-day.
6.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: What the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has asked us to do has a great appeal for me. Certainly I want to consider this whole matter very closely in the light of what has been said, and I am wondering whether it would not be better that we should adjourn before
492
deciding "Aye" or "No" about this particular proposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was what I meant.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would like to make a concession at once. I fully appreciate what the Lord Chancellor has said about the choice between Parliamentary and judicial sanctions, and I am rather disposed to think that if the necessary provision could be properly framed there is a lot to be said for making this a case for judicial rather than for Parliamentary sanction. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was right when he said that under the Bill as it stands it would be impossible to get an order which varied the conditions in a licence. I want to show that I accept gratefully anything which is helpful to a better understanding. But what I feel we need to consider a little further is whether the kind of scheme provided for us in Clause 18 might lead to what would be called "judicial" conclusion. My own impression, if I may express it in a sentence, is that it would be necessary, to make the thing judicial, for the Government Department to go before the comptroller with the evidence they needed to prove their case. It is not true that that would mean repeating everything because, of course, the Monopolies Commission are collecting material, just as the police collect a great deal of material before they prosecute. We do not want to have to have it all done over again. We want only to ensure that there is presented to the judicial body conclusions which it is felt can be proved. I think that to adopt the Lord Chancellor's suggestion may be the way, by general agreement, to reach a solution. In the circumstances, I think it would be almost better for us not to vote either way to-day but simply to take time to look at this again. When we have done so I am sure that we shall all meet in an accommodating spirit and doubtless we shall be able to reach a satisfactory solution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My suggestion was that we should break off now without taking a vote. With regard to the activities of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission, I would point out that Clause 18 is not affected by this question of not paying any regard to the findings of the Commission and starting a matter all over

493
again to obtain findings by this judicial tribunal. That does not affect Clause 18 which deals merely with the class of cases in which application can be made.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that to put this matter in order, I had better withdraw my Amendment now, and we can decide what to do about Clause 18 on the next occasion. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the House resumes, may I say that I hope the noble Viscount will take into account in any consideration he gives to this new Clause 18 his Amendment putting in a three years' period?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I appreciate that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
6.30 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
Clause 3 [Excessive prices for furniture, &c., to be treated as premiums]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, at end, insert ("of the provisions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Transitional provisions as to premiums]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 11, leave out ("the foregoing provisions") and insert ("paragraphs 2 to 7").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this last Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, at end, insert ("and the amount which would be the amount of the
494
rental equivalent of a premium if that date were the relevant elate").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
6.32 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  SUCCESSION DUTY AND INCOME TAX
  SUCCESSION DUTY AND INCOME TAX
  AURAL AIDS
  AURAL AIDS