Sitting of 25 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHICHESTER) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORLEY) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MACCLESFIELD) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (TRAINING)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what facilities are available for voluntary training for officers and other ranks of the Royal Naval Reserve; and to how many applicants training facilities have been refused since the beginning of this year.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Voluntary training for a period of 14 days was reintroduced in 1948 for Royal Naval Reserve officers except those Senior Executive Officers who underwent the War or Technical Courses. In the current year it has been necessary to limit this voluntary training to those officers who were unable to take advantage of the opportunities offered last year, and for this reason, applications from 20 officers who completed voluntary training in 1948 have
  1234
  had to be refused. The matter will, however, be reviewed later in the year. Voluntary training for Royal Naval Reserve ratings has always been limited to voluntary service in the Fleet during annual manoeuvres. There have been no opportunities for such training so far this year.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in at least one of the 20 cases to which he has referred and to which I invited his attention great discouragement has been caused that an officer who has volunteered to do his service has been told that he is not permitted to do so? In view of the fact that only 20 are involved and in view of the present total of the Navy Estimates, is not the financial objection which the hon. Gentleman has given really quite ludicrous?
  Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly look into the matter. I do not want these officers to be discouraged, but we must primarily give consideration to the compulsory training of those who have not had experience. All these officers have, of course, had experience, but I will look into the matter.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does this mean that ratings are unlikely to have any opportunity at all during 1949?
  Mr. Dugdale: The voluntary training for ratings, as opposed to compulsory training, is, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman no doubt knows, training in ships at sea. It is possible that this may be given, but an opportunity has not arisen so far this year.
  Sir Ronald Ross: How would an opportunity for these officers to have further training interfere with the training of the other officers who, the hon. Gentleman has told us, need training to a greater degree and have had less of it than the officers who are to be further trained?
  Mr. Dugdale: Obviously such training resources as we have should, as I said, first be devoted to the other kind of training and afterwards training will be given to officers of the kind mentioned here. The primary consideration will be to give training to those who are most in need of it.

  TELEVISION SERVICES (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General what progress he has made to this date with provision of television services for the North of Scotland; and when he expects such services to become available to the people there.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I regret that I have nothing to add to the answers given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Colonel Hutchison), on 26th April.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Cannot my right hon. Friend direct some of the £19½ million surplus which the Post Office has and modern inventive genius towards giving the Scottish people some of the amenities in this respect which the English enjoy? What are the administrative or other difficulties in the way of doing this?
  Mr. Paling: The difficulties relate to capital expenditure on which there are restrictions. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, certain Departments have priority.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: But does not my right hon. Friend admit that he has a surplus of £19½ million, some of which he could devote to this purpose?
  Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish people are very gravely dissatisfied with the handling of the B.B.C. in Scotland, especially with regard to the development of television? It appears to most of them—they express the opinion very freely—that there is a deliberate attempt to make Scotland some kind of a suburb of England. Is it not about time that we got rid of that idea?
  Mr. Paling: I do not think anybody would attempt to do that. I realise that, like other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland is anxious to get television as soon as possible.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was a Scotsman who invented television? Why cannot Scotland have television?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety in Scotland that there should be television programmes of the proceedings in another place?

  POST OFFICE

    Air Mail Charges (Parcels)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider introducing lower postal rates for parcels sent overseas by air, in view of the great difference between air mail charges and surface mail charges, and the hardship caused to many firms wishing to send samples of export goods overseas.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Second class mail, which includes samples, may be sent by air mail at reduced postage rates to the whole of Central and South America and the West Indies. I hope very shortly to provide similar facilities to Canada, the United States of America and Mexico, and to extend them to Commonwealth destinations on the "Empire" routes to South Africa, India and Australia by about the end of the year.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the meantime the present charges are a severe handicap to our export trade and that a constituent of mine who wanted to send a parcel to Australia found that whereas the charge by surface mail was 11d. the cost by air mail was 33s.; and will he look into this matter and do something before the end of the year?
    Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir. I realise that the handicap exists and I should like to remedy it as soon as possible.

    Teleprinters (Labour Offices)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Postmaster-General what was the capital cost of providing teleprinters in the Ministry of Labour regional offices; and what is the annual cost of maintaining them.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The capital cost of providing teleprinters in Ministry of Labour regional offices was £1,952. The annual cost of maintenance is £656.
    Colonel Ropner: Did the Postmaster-General make any inquiry about the extent to which these teleprinters would be used before he agreed to instal them?
    Mr. Paling: Whilst I am not quite sure that that was done, we have to be satisfied that these teleprinters are necessary before they are provided.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Airfield Facilities, Hong Kong
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to provide temporary airstrips in Hong Kong or the New Territories.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): The Air Commander-in-Chief Far East has reported that the airfield facilities at Kai Tak are adequate for the aircraft at present based there. It would not be in the national interest to indicate any further steps which may be being taken to strengthen the air defences of the Colony.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that aircraft more modern than those already sent, which would probably be required for the defence of the Colony, could land on the present airfield?
    Mr. de Freitas: The Question refers to temporary airstrips, and I have said that it is not in the public interest to indicate any further steps which may be being taken.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While that may not be in the public interest, is the Ministry taking steps to see that arrangements are made so that modern aircraft can be accommodated there?
    Mr. de Freitas: I can certainly give the assurance that aircraft would not be sent unless there were airfields or airstrips from which they could operate.
    Mr. Gallacher: Instead of airstrips at Hong Kong, would it not be much better to make diplomatic strides in view of the occupation of Shanghai?

    Personal Case
    Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Air how many days 2411872 A.C.2 H. L. Taylor has served in the Royal Air Force; how many of these days he has spent in sick bay, hospital or on leave; what medical grading he received on going into the Royal Air Force; what his grade is now; and what duties he is now performing.
    Mr. de Freitas: He has served 203 days and 137 of these he has spent in sick bay, hospital or on leave. When he entered the Royal Air Force he was classified as fit for ground duty anywhere
    1238
    but he has since been downgraded as fit for home service only. He is now on his recruits' training course.
    Mr. Bramall: Is it not clear that this young man's health has been seriously impaired by his short period of service and that he is of very little value indeed to the Service—so far, in fact, he has provided no service of any value at all; will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this man's brother left the Army broken in health, and will he seriously consider the possibility of discharging this man from the Service?
    Mr. de Freitas: This has been very carefully considered. The doctors believe this man to be getting on well, that the Service will benefit him and that he will give benefit to the Service. He will be re-examined again in a couple of months and may well be upgraded in health.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend say on what basis he makes the remarks that the Service will be of benefit to this man or that he will be of benefit to the Service, in view of the fact that 130 out of his 200 days' service have been spent sick?
    Mr. de Freitas: On the first point, he is receiving excellent medical attention; we are taking very great care of him. On the second point, he still has many days' service left and we think we can get good value from him.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Pleasure Flights (Landing Charges)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why State-controlled airfields are to increase their landing charges for joy flights by a thousand per cent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No increase is to be made for 1949, but the whole question of landing charges for joy flights will be subject to review at the end of the year.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are reports that charges will go up very considerably, and as we want this country to be as air-minded as possible will he do all he can to encourage these joy flights.
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. So far as my Ministry is concerned, we encourage joy flying from the point of view of creating airmindedness, but as hon. Members who represent constituencies with aerodromes in the vicinity will know, joy flying is not always favourably regarded by local residents.

    River Thames (Seaplanes)
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he has given consideration to establishing a seaplane base on the Thames in view of the recent successful visit of the 35-ton flying boat "City of London."
    Mr. Lindgren: I regret that regular flying boat operations on a busy waterway like the Thames would be impracticable.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is my hon. Friend aware that on other equally busy waterways seaplanes—British seaplanes, too—have regularly used such ports? I have in mind the Nile at Cairo and the Clyde anchorages emergency port on the Clyde during the war.
    Mr. Lindgren: Even on the Nile the shipping was an embarrassment to B.O.A.C., and I think that B.O.A.C. was an embarrassment to the shipping. It is equally true, if my geography is correct, that the Nile is non-tidal whereas the Thames is tidal; and the density of shipping and tidal conditions of the Thames make this proposal impossible.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: While I do not dispute the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, may I ask whether any further action is being taken to give effect to the Pakenham Report?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is not an urgent matter at present, because the S.R. 45 is the only new flying boat involved in the immediate future; and the report is not at present being proceeded with.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Port of London Authority, who have some knowledge of the river and its shipping possibilities, have recommended that a seaplane base be established on the Thames?
    Mr. Lindgren: On behalf of my noble Friend, I should like to say how much we appreciate the help of the Port of
    1240
    London Authority and the shipping interests in the recent landing of the flying boat on the Thames. Whilst it is a pleasure for people to do a thing once, to continue asking for that favour might become a nuisance.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say where the S.R. 45 flying boat will operate from if not from London?
    Mr. Lindgren: Southampton Water.

    Gliders (Regulations)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date he received a letter from the Yorkshire Gliding Club about Air Navigation Regulations; whether he has replied to that letter; and what action he is taking to meet their complaints.
    Mr. Lindgren: A letter dated 6th April was received by my noble Friend and has been answered by him. The reply dealt fully with the points raised and indicates that one of the matters, namely, the difficulty of applying the regulations relating to marks on aircraft to certain types of gliders used for practice and instruction, is being considered, together with other matters that have been raised by the British Gliding Association.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain why last week he failed to mention the letter received from the Yorkshire Gliding Club and why he described the information I gave about that letter as incorrect?
    Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to HANSARD he will see that he referred to the gliding club movement. Yorkshire is important, but it is not a movement yet.

    Charter Companies (Conditions)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps are taken before associated agreements are granted to charter companies to run scheduled services, to ensure that the conditions set out in paragraph viii (a) of his directive, are in fact met by the charter companies concerned.
    Mr. Lindgren: Each company is required by a clause in its agreement with

    1241
    the Corporation to undertake to observe the condition set out in paragraph (viii) (a) of the directive.
    Mr. Beswick: Is not my hon. Friend aware that a number of these charter companies have refused to sign an agreement with the British Airline Pilots' Association, even though those agreements were, as I think my hon. Friend will agree, most reasonable; and if they are, in fact, adhering to paragraph viii (a) can my hon. Friend say why this agreement has not been signed?
    Mr. Lindgren: It is true that our attention has been called to the fact that certain charter companies are not observing fair rates of pay and conditions of employment. The associate agreement with B.E.A. is, I am informed, a contractual one and can be discontinued by B.E.A. on their being satisfied through the usual channels that the agreement is not being observed.
    Mr. Beswick: May I ask my hon. Friend to refer again to my Question, in which I asked what steps are taken to ensure that the agreements are in conformity with the directive sent out by his noble Friend?
    Mr. Lindgren: In the first place, the associate agreement is a contractual obligation between B.E.A. and the persons with whom the agreement is made. Therefore, the first step must be made by one or other of those two sides. As far as any disagreement is concerned, if it cannot be resolved between the two sides the services of my Ministry, and particularly of the Ministry of Labour, who have a great deal of experience in these matters, are at the disposal of the unions and the Corporation.
    Mr. Beswick: I am sorry to press this matter, but in point of fact in the directive it is stated that before a recommendation is made to the Minister
    "the Air Transport Advisory Council are asked to see that these conditions are fulfilled.…"
    How do they make certain that the conditions are fulfilled?
    Mr. Lindgren: The British Air Charter Association are doing their best to see that an agreement is, in fact, negotiated, but it is unfortunately true that a number of charter companies who are members of the British Air Charter Association are
    1242
    not prepared to make an agreement providing for rates of pay and conditions of service which are considered to be fair inside the trade union movement.
    Mr. Scollan: How does it come about that the pilots' association are prepared to supply pilots to these people who will not observe the conditions of the B.E.A.?
    Mr. Lindgren: The pilots' association are a trade union and not an employment agency. They do not supply pilots; if they did, they would see that fair rates of wages were observed. These are negotiated in the normal way as between employer and employee.

  JAPAN (REPARATIONS)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations were held by his representative on the Far Eastern Commission with the United States representative before the latter's statement on 12th May on the future policy regarding reparations to be paid by Japan.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): None, Sir. Consultation on the proposals set out in the statement will properly take place with all interested Governments in the Far Eastern Commission itself.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: As the effect of what is already a decision by the American Government to end reparations from Japan will be to restore Japanese industry as German industry has been restored in the West and so once again undercut Britain in her overseas markets, and as the smallest of the satellites, the Philippines have made a vigorous protest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—does not my right hon. Friend think he should take his courage into his hands and make a similar protest?
  Mr. Mayhew: I cannot agree with any of those assumptions. Our attitude will be made clear in due course before the Far Eastern Commission.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Have the Colonial Office, or the colonial authorities who are largely and directly interested in these reparations, been taken into consultation in the past, and will they be represented in the negotiations?
  Mr. Mayhew: Of course we are in touch and will be in touch with the Colonial Office on matters of this kind.

  SOVIET UNION (B.B.C. BROADCASTS)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information has been given by his Department to the British Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to prepare their Russian programmes in the national interest.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Foreign Office give the British Broadcasting Corporation any information regarding conditions in, and the policy of His Majesty's Government towards, the Soviet Union that would appear helpful to them in preparing their broadcasts in Russian.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Was it really necessary, just at the moment when the peoples of the world, longing for four-Power unity, were looking to Paris so hopefully, to intensify this radio warfare against the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Mayhew: I should have thought four-Power unity would be helped by allowing the Russian people to know the truth about world affairs.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In the interests of truth, will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for the B.B.C. to broadcast to the Russian people a denial of the assertions made recently in a Russian paper to the effect that Londoners go out with guns and traps at the week-ends into the suburbs to shoot and kill squirrels so as to appease their hunger?

  ITALIAN COLONIES (FUTURE)
  Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take in consequence of the rejection by the General Assembly of the United Nations of the proposals for the future of the Italian Colonies recommended by the Political Committee; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon.
  1244
  Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 23rd May, which applies equally to all the former Italian Colonies.
  Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the importance of this question, especially in Tripolitania and, in some degree in the other colonies, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that some representation will be made to the United Nations that if they desire Great Britain to administer these territories until September, they are in duty bound to produce some finance to overcome the growing resentment at the status quo?
  Mr. Mayhew: We have not overlooked that, but I cannot make any statement on policy yet.

  GERMANY

    Berlin Traffic (Soviet Restrictions)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what restrictions the Soviet authorities have placed on traffic to and from Berlin; what has been the effect of these restrictions; and what explanations have been received of the reasons for their imposition.
    Mr. Mayhew: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of the reply. The Soviet authorities have imposed, or retained, since 12th May a number of restrictions on traffic to and from Berlin. Individually these may appear to be insignificant or technical in character. Collectively, their effect has been to limit the volume of supplies entering Berlin.
    These restrictions include an insistence that all trains proceeding to Berlin must now be drawn by Soviet zone locomotives manned by Soviet zone crews. Prior to 1st March, 1948, Bizonal locomotives and crews were used and this practice was based upon a Soviet request in 1945.
    Secondly, Soviet officers have been permanently installed at principal Western sector stations dealing with Allied traffic and are insisting upon supervising working of trains. They have instructed Reichsbahn officials that they are to refuse any Allied instructions not passed through them. This system did not obtain on 1st March, 1948.
    Thirdly, the Soviet authorities have now stated that only the Helmstedt line

    1245
    may be used for traffic to Berlin. Before the blockade, a variable number of goods trains to Berlin was permitted to pass by alternative routes through Cebisfelde and through Probstzelle.
    Fourthly, the Soviet authorities have contended that they are only obliged to provide facilities for a total of 16 Allied passenger and Allied and Kommandatura freight trains to Berlin a day. In fact, in the months previous to the blockade, the average number of trains was considerably higher than this.
    Fifthly, the Soviet authorities, departing from previous practice, have placed restrictions upon the use of the autobahn from Helmstedt by commercial traffic to Berlin. They have also demanded documentation and permits for the movement of freight by road which were not required before the blockade.
    Sixthly, they have insisted upon a new system of documentation and registration for barges entering from the Western zones. These documents have been forthcoming in very limited numbers and they appear to confer only a limited right of movement within the Soviet zone.
    Vigorous representations have been made to the Soviet authorities in respect of each of these departures from pre-blockade practice. As a result, there have been relaxations on a number of points.
    Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that some of the traffic had been interfered with and delayed. Can he give any idea of the percentage of the traffic affected by these various restrictions?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid I cannot give a mathematical figure. I can only say that it has lessened the flow of traffic into Berlin without by any means throttling it.
    Mr. Stokes: In order to ensure the continuance of traffic into Berlin, are any steps being taken to reintroduce the three posts on the autobahn which we had before the restrictions were imposed?
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the reduction in the daily volume of tonnage of materials sent by rail or by road?
    Mr. Mayhew: Not without notice. Perhaps I might try to get the figure and let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will my hon. Friend indicate the nature of the interference with traffic, particularly with railway traffic? Are the goods displaced, or transferred, and in what respect is there any guarantee that goods in the train are delivered at the end of the journey untouched?
    Mr. Mayhew: I think my original reply gives details as to that.
    Major Beamish: Are these matters being discussed in Paris and, if not, would it not be better to see that the question of free traffic is raised before going forward with more important matters?
    Mr. Mayhew: Discussions are proceeding in Berlin on this matter.

    British Visitors (Permits)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet make any statement as to arrangements for British citizens to make visits to Western Germany other than on business or compassionate grounds.
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. I am glad to inform the House that, following negotiations between the three Western Occupying Powers, the British zone of Germany will be open to ordinary visitors from other countries before the end of next month. The other Western Occupying Powers will, no doubt, be making similar announcements. The date, and guidance on how to apply for permits, will be made public as soon as possible.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has authorised me to say that the three Western zones of Germany will be added to the list of countries in which the basic travel allowance and the £10 car allowance may be used. He hopes, however, that applications for currency will not be made to banks and travel agents until the date on which the zones are to be opened has been finally announced.
    Similarly, my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that applications for entry permits will not be made to military permit offices before further details of the scheme are announced.
    Mr. Skinnard: Could the Minister inform the House whether preliminary

    1247
    arrangements have been made for visits by people in this country to occupied zones other than our own?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, this applies to the Western zones.
    Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any limit to the number of applications which can be considered this Summer?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think so, but a further and more detailed statement will be made next week.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could my hon. Friend say whether any particular arrangements are being made, or have been made, in respect of accommodation?
    Mr. Mayhew: Accommodation will be in German hotels in the normal way.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will reciprocal arrangements be made in the case of Germans who may want to come and see us in this country?
    Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

  HONG KONG

    Murdered Police Officers
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the murder of the two police inspectors in Hong Kong.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): Yes, Sir. As the statement is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gammans: Could the Under-Secretary make this point clear: is there any suspicion that these murders took place as a result of Communist instigation either from within or outside the Colony? Is this the beginning of what happened in Malaya about a year ago?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am informed that there is no evidence of that. It was a bandit raid and had no political significance.
    Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of Order. Is there no way in which we can ask the Minister to let us have the
    1248
    statement now? This matter concerns the lives of British subjects in an important theatre of operations.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Eden: Might the statement be given after Questions?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I will certainly give it after Questions.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Rees-Williams: At about 2.30 a.m. on 6th May, Inspector R. F. C. Olivier, Sub-Inspector L. Haynes and Detective Corporal Wong Kam, of the Hong Kong Police, were murdered as they slept aboard a police cruising launch secured at anchor for the night at Port Island in Mirs Bay in the N.E. territorial waters of the Colony. The coxswain was then wounded and compelled to steam the launch to a point in Chinese territory about one mile from the frontier where it was boarded by 16 men who made off with part of the armament.
    It appears that one of the seamen of the launch had become friendly with a bandit gang that operates in Chinese territory not far from the Hong Kong frontier, and had concealed two members of the gang in the launch 36 hours before she left Kowloon. It is probable that he had persuaded the second seaman, a clansman of his, to assist him. There is no reason to suppose that the murders have a political background or that they form part of a larger plot.
    Strenuous efforts are being made to trace the murderers and a large reward has been offered; the safe from the launch and all the weapons it contained have been recovered.
    I have seen a report that Chinese Nationalist forces have killed three bandits said to have been responsible for the murder of Hong Kong police officers. My right hon. Friend has not yet heard from the Governor whether or not these are the murderers in question.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the drivers of the launch, the two men mainly responsible, were sworn members of the Hong Kong Police or not?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that they were seamen employed by the Police Department in connection with duties on the launch.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Were they sworn members of the police?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that Question down. I could not answer it now.

    Police (Oath of Allegiance)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the oath of allegiance declared by recruits to the Hong Kong Police was changed to its present form, which omits a pledge, "well and faithfully to serve His Majesty the King his heirs and successors"; and what was the reason for the change.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is looking into this matter and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

  ADEN (TUBERCULOSIS)
  Dr. Barnett Strossasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what improvements have been effected since 1945 in Aden in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Since the answer is somewhat long and contains figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The civil hospital accommodation at Aden for tubercular patients has been increased from 10 to 102 beds, exclusive of 16 beds in the Jewish Emergency Hospital. No specific treatment was available before 1945, but since then 105 cases have been discharged quiescent, the majority on full work. There have been 12 relapses. Free home treatment has been instituted to cover the deficit in bed accommodation. One hundred and twenty-five cases are now undergoing that treatment. There was formerly no system of notification. In 1948 the notifications totalled 481. Before 1945 the average annual number of X-ray examinations of chests was 20; in 1948 the number was 2,160.
  The hospital staff of all grades are now X-rayed every six months. Since 1945, 10 cases of tuberculosis have been discovered; of these, six are now back on full work, three are recovering and one has been invalided for other causes.
  Full pay sick leave is now granted to all Government and Port Trust permanent employees who contract tuberculosis in the course of their duties, and who are recommended to be likely to benefit from treatment. A voluntary society founded by the Arab community grants monthly allowances to dependants of all poor persons treated for tuberculosis at home or in hospital. The society employs one male paid, and one female voluntary home visitor. The wartime rise in the tuberculosis death rate has been arrested and a sligh decline is now evident, but no marked decrease can be expected as many more patients are coming into Aden from the surrounding country in the hope of receiving treatment. In 1948, 156 notifications were of Aden-born persons and 325 notifications were of persons from outside the Colony.

  TRINIDAD

    British Goods (Prices)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that, as a result of a survey made by the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce, it is clear that the prices of many consumer goods from the United Kingdom are more expensive than the price of similar articles from the United States of America and Canada, and that there is growing dissatisfaction that consumers are compelled to buy from the sterling area; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Some imports from the United Kingdom are dearer than similar goods from the United States and Canada. It is quite true that owing to the shortage of American and Canadian dollars imports from those countries have to be carefully controlled by import licensing. My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties and importance of this problem and has it under examination.
    Mr. Gammans: Does the Colonial Office realise the economic and political repercussions of this sort of thing, which, if it continues—if the disparity continues

    1251
    —must either mean dissatisfaction with this country, as the people with whom my Question is concerned are compelled to take goods at higher prices, or else lead to the loss by us of markets on which we must rely to balance our external trade?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Colonial Office realises all the implications.

    Tropical Agriculture (Research)
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the research operations in process at the School of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad, and if satisfactory relations have been established for extended information of results being communicated to other parts of the Colonial Empire.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The main research projects at the Imperial College are concerned with banana breeding, cocoa, soils and sugar technology. The results of research at the College are published in its journal, which circulates throughout the Colonial Empire.
    Sir P. Hannon: Are the results of the research carried out in the College of Tropical Agriculture circulated to other tropical parts of the Colonial Empire?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes. The college issues a journal called "Tropical Agriculture," the latest issue of which was published on 31st December, 1948, and its work is very widely known to research workers throughout the Empire.
    Sir P. Hannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    Civil Service (Appointments)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese in Singapore occupy posts in the Colonial Administrative Service equivalent to grades 1b and 1a in the Malayan Civil Service; and how many Chinese in Singapore occupy posts of any higher status.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: At the present time there are no Chinese occupying such posts.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend take into account the widespread dissatisfaction among Chinese in Singapore that none of them can get into any worth while post in the Civil Service? Is it not time that a public service commission was established so that they can do so?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not accept that view about feeling in Singapore, but the creation of a public service commission to facilitate the recruitment of local people has been agreed upon.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Malays are serving as staff officers or have been appointed to staff appointments or are in grades 1b or 1a of the Malayan Civil Service.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: In January, 1949, there were two Malays in Class 1b of the Malayan Civil Service and one in Class 1a. There were no Malays of staff rank in the Administrative Service.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain how we propose to implement our pledge to give self-government to Malaya and the Colony of Singapore if we do not allow the inhabitants of the country to take over some of the chief posts in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: My hon. Friend does not realise, or rather I am sure that he does realise but has not given full weight to, the fact that Malaya has a federal constitution and that practically all the posts in the State service are already staffed by Malays. It is our intention to bring the people of the country ever more into these posts of an important nature.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials are employed in the Malayan Department of the Colonial Office; and how many of these officials have ever visited Malaya.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Excluding junior staff, there are six officers in the Eastern Division who deal with Malayan affairs. Two of them have visited Malaya. In addition 14 members of the senior staff of other sections of the office, which are also concerned with aspects of Malayan affairs, have visited the territory.

    Security Measures (Co-operation)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent have the Malayan Chinese and Malays co-operated with the authorities in Malaya in resisting extortion, blackmail, sabotage and murder by Communists.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Malays have from the beginning given the Government their wholehearted and courageous co-operation. As a result of singling out the Chinese for ruthless intimidation and threats of murder, the bandits are still securing from some of them funds and other assistance. There are, however, indications that Chinese resistance to bandit pressure is growing and that active co-operation with the authorities is improving.
    Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that the Chinese and Malays have formed associations to unite in combating this terrorism?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes. I am glad to say that a Malay and Chinese association has been formed to foster mutual co-operation between the communities.

    War Damage Claims
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the £20 million granted to Malaya for war damage is to be allocated to the various claimants; will equal rights be given to Malayan claimants as to British; and to private claims as to business claims.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The free grant of £20 million, being a contribution towards a scheme of greater magnitude, will not itself be allocated. His Majesty's Government's offer does not envisage any racial distinction and makes special provision for private claims.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Under-Secretary inform the House, or place the information in the Library, on how this money is to be allocated, in order that this House can ascertain whether the local people are getting their fair share?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: A memorandum of proposals has been submitted to the Malayan Government. I will look into the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in that scheme there is a priority allocation for small native claimants, who will get an immediate prior payment.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a suggested allocation for private chattels.
    Major Beamish: Does the increase in the size of this grant mean that there is to be any speed up in the machinery for settling these claims, which have been outstanding for so long?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I assume that that will be a natural consequence.

    Anglo-Indonesian Trade Agreement
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from chambers of commerce or other commercial bodies in Malaya or Singapore concerning the recent agreement for direct trade between this country and Indonesia.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: None, Sir, but I understand that the chambers of commerce have made certain representations to the Governor of Singapore.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiation by the Board of Trade of a bilateral agreement which harms the trade of Singapore to a great extent, without prior consultation with the local interests, is a very bad practice, and upsets the whole of the local administration.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I really cannot accept that suggestion because my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told the hon. Member on 3rd May exactly what the purport of these conversations was and that it was not such as would in any way interfere with the entrepôt trade of Singapore.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the purport may have been the result of not taking local people into consultation has been very bad and inimical to the local interests of all races.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have not had any evidence of that.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Sterling Balances
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the total sterling balances in each British Colony at the end of the war; and what the totals are now.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the reply to the Question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The sterling assets of the Colonies comprise funds of currency boards, funds held with the Crown Agents for the Colonies, loans to His Majesty's Government and London balances of banks operating in the Colonies. Excluding Ceylon and Palestine, these assets totalled some £530 million at 31st December, 1945, and some £610 million at 31st December, 1948. The former total includes approximately £85 million and the latter total approximately £90 million of non-United Kingdom sterling securities. The principal holders were:

    31 st December, 1945

    31 st December, 1948

    £ millions

    £ millions

    Malaya

    …

    115

    105

    West Africa

    …

    100

    145

    East Africa

    …

    100

    105

    It is regretted that figures for each individual Colony cannot be supplied.

    Reports
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he contemplates the continued publication of reports on the economic and social progress of the constituent communities of the Colonial Empire; what such reports are in process of preparation; and if he will indicate probable dates of issue.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir. Forty-two Colonial annual reports in the 1948 series are in preparation. It is expected that the first will be published by His Majesty's Stationery Office in June and the remainder will follow between then and the end of the year.
    Sir P. Hannon: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware of the great value of these reports in times gone by to those of us who are interested in
    1256
    the Colonial Empire? Also will he circulate to all Members the valuable memorandum prepared by Sir William McLean at the Colonial Office?
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the Under-Secretary say when we may expect publication of the annual report by the Colonial Office, as it is important to have it before we debate the Colonial Estimates?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The annual report is with the printers at the moment. I am hoping that it will not be more than two weeks before the report is in the hands of hon. Members. There is also another report in which I am sure the House will be interested, the regional report which my right hon. Friend promised last year. That will be on our Far Eastern Dependencies.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the recent great progress in the Colonies, would my hon. Friend consider extending the scope of these reports in future so as to give a better and more detailed picture of the progress which has recently been made?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I think that the three types of report to which reference has been made during this Question and answer will give hon. Members all the information they desire.

    Native Children (U.K. Schools)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether facilities are provided for advising parents and guardians of native Colonial children in respect of their sending children here for education in boarding schools; whether his Department endeavours to keep a record of such children; and whether he will compile a list of schools who do not exercise colour discrimination.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Parents who wish to send their children privately to the United Kingdom for secondary education can consult the educational authorities in the Colonies and I do not consider that any special records or arrangements are necessary.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that there have geen instances of African children being refused entrance to colleges and schools in this country, one instance of which I believe the hon. Gentleman is

    1257
    aware, will he take some steps to prevent this most unfortunate experience coming to any children from our Colonies?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I regret very much the incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but I regard this as a question of the broader spreading of education in this country.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to indicate to these schools, especially to private schools, that they have no moral if indeed they have a legal right to refuse admission to a girl merely because she is coloured?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I regret it, but I have no authority over the proprietors of private schools in regard to whom they shall admit.

  NYASALAND (TOBACCO)
  Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that most of the tobacco produced in Nyasaland is of the dark fired type used largely in pipe mixtures and that as pipe smoking shows a declining tendency it is becoming increasingly necessary to seek foreign markets in which price is a dominating factor for this tobacco, he will further review the desirability of the export duty now being levied on a product the bulk of which is grown by Africans.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has considered this matter but is unable in existing circumstances to make a change.
  Mr. Baldwin: In view of the very limited exports of this Colony will the Under-Secretary give serious consideration to this matter, in view of the urgent necessity for them to get this export trade?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: A lot of economic factors are tied up with this proposal. It is no use inducing people to grow tobacco at the expense of food crops. There is also the question of a different type of tobacco being grown.

  UGANDA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any
  1258
  further statement to make on the situation in Uganda; how many people have been killed; and how many arrested.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Five persons were killed in the disturbances. Otherwise I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 18th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen).
  Mr. Piratin: As the Under-Secretary was able the other day to give to the House information as to how many people had been killed and how many people were arrested, why is it that he has not any further information of what happened on this particular occasion when these killings and arrests took place; and if he has the information why does he not give it to the House?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have got information, and I have given a good deal of information to the House. But when a commission of inquiry is set up I think it undesirable to go too deeply into the causes of disturbances of this kind.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Has the Under-Secretary received any information from the Governor to the effect that these riots were inspired by Communists?

  TANGANYIKA (LEASES)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what length of lease has been granted to the Overseas Food Corporation for development areas in Tanganyika.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The draft lease provides for the right of occupancy for 33 years in the first instance with option to apply for renewal for a similar period after 33 and 66 years.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance of long leases to the producers of such crops as coffee and sisal, will the Under-Secretary consider similar leases being given to other producers than Government producers, having particular regard to ex-enemy estates?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am informed that the length of lease being given to the Overseas Food Corporation is exactly the same as that given to other private owners who take up leases.

  BERLIN AIR LIFT (HONOURS)
  Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Prime Minister if a medal is to be issued to persons taking part in the Berlin air lift.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.
  Mr. Shephard: Would not the Prime Minister agree that by taking part in the air lift they have done a first-class job; and since no medal is to be awarded have the Government contemplated any other method of recognition of this service?
  The Prime Minister: A number of extra honours have been awarded to those in the air lift, but it is not our practice to issue medals except where there is service in military operations against the enemy, and it would be inappropriate to issue a medal.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)
  Sir Robert Youngasked the Prime Minister what number of Government employed persons have been examined as to their loyalty and reliability and, as a result, have been respectively transferred to other employment or dismissed; whether he is aware of the growing irritation and adverse criticism among fellow-employees of those suspected at the long time these investigations take; and whether he will issue a direction to ensure a decision within four weeks from the date of suspension from work.
  The Prime Minister: Fifty persons have received notice that they are thought to come within the scope of the Government's policy in regard to the employment of Communists and Fascists in certain parts of the Civil Service. Of these none have been dismissed, three have resigned and ten have been transferred. Of the rest, 16 have been reinstated, 12 are awaiting transfer, while nine have not yet replied. It is clearly in the interests of the individual that hasty decisions should not be taken, but I will see whether it is practicable to speed up the machinery in any way.
  Sir R. Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this growing irritation may in some places lead to unofficial stoppages, and therefore would it not be advisable at a very early date to determine that three months should not elapse in relation to these cases?
  The Prime Minister: It is not really the length of time taken in the determining of these cases; the difficulty occurs in finding a place to which a person can be transferred. Obviously that must take longer.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is just a political stunt.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Prime Minister say when this purge will be completed?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us have received letters complaining that a Communist holds a key position in Buckingham Palace, and are any of the 50 from the Palace?
  The Prime Minister: I have not received that information myself.

  IRELAND BILL
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Prime Minister to what extent he consulted the Irish Government about the Ireland Bill before it was presented to Parliament; and if, in view of the understanding between the British and Irish Governments that such consultation would take place, he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: The understanding with the Government of Eire (as it then was), reached during the discussions which took place last Autumn, was that there should be collaboration between the two countries in maintaining jointly that they would not treat one another as foreign. This understanding was fully carried out. It did not extend to the provisions of the Ireland Bill relating to Northern Ireland, which are, so far as I am aware, the only ones to which the Government of the Irish Republic take exception.
  Mr. Gallacher: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement made by the Department of External Affairs in Dublin that

  1261
  as a result of written exchanges and discussions which took place at Chequers and in Paris an understanding was reached that the British and Irish Governments would consult in any steps which might be taken as a result of the Republic of Ireland Act? In view of that definite statement will he not have something further to say on this matter, because no consultation of any kind took place and the Irish authorities did not get the Bill until the day it was introduced here?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think I need to add anything to what has already been said. A very full statement was made in another place yesterday.
  Mr. Eden: In view of this statement can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Irish Government in any way consulted with His Majesty's Government before announcing that they proposed to abrogate the External Relations Act?
  The Prime Minister: No, sir. No notification was received.
  Sir R. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that a policy opposed both by Sir Oswald Mosley and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) cannot be wrong?

  ARMED FORCES

    Defence (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what is now the cost per head of the population of expenditure on the Defence Services and of armaments.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The present annual cost of defence per head of population in the United Kingdom is about £15.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the statement, reported in "The Times," of to-day, made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand that £15 per head of the population is now spent on the defence of this country, compared with £7 in New Zealand, and does he realise that this amounts to a burden of 30s. a week on a working-class family?
    Mr. Alexander: It is a very heavy burden to bear for defence, but there
    1262
    would be other burdens placed upon the nation subsequently if we did not bear our proper share.

    Pension Scheme (Widows)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Defence whether, in the case of retired officers of the Armed Forces, who on account of age or other reasons are not eligible for the new contributory pension scheme, a pension will be granted to a widow on his death irrespective of her age.
    Mr. Alexander: I cannot anticipate what the conditions governing the new contributory scheme will be, but the widows of any officers who may be ineligible for it will, of course, remain eligible for consideration under existing regulations. Those regulations debar a widow who is more than 25 years younger than her husband: otherwise her eligibility is not affected by her age.
    Mr. Philips Price: Is not it a fact that these widows are suffering, or will suffer, from a means test; and would it not be possible to make arrangements whereby they received a pension which was not subject to a means test?
    Mr. Alexander: I think it would be best if we could first come to a decision upon the reconstruction of the general system on a contributory basis, and then pay attention to any points which hon. Members might wish to raise with regard to the existing situation.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the 25 years' rule, as it is perfectly arbitrary and causes great hardship and anxiety? The implication behind it is that these widows married these officers with the object of getting a pension, which is a most unworthy implication, and in 99 cases out of a 100 completely unjustified.
    Mr. Alexander: There are aspects about it which certainly cannot be popular, and many consider them not to be very fair; but this is of very long standing.
    Mr. Nicholson: Even such a conservative argument as that need not necessarily be right.
    Mr. Alexander: If the hon. Member had listened, he would know that I have already said that as soon as we have

    1263
    finished the details of the contributory scheme we shall give further attention to the other matters; but I cannot enter into any commitments.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Restaurant Meals (Restriction)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food if he will state the reason for the continuance of the war-time restriction on the price of restaurant meals; and, in view of the deterrent which the restriction presents to foreign tourists, whether he will remove it and at the same time give an assurance that the proportion of rationed foods given to restaurants is small and will not be increased.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I cannot add anything to the reply I gave in the House on 18th May to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).
    Mr. Keeling: As there are many exceptions to the order, as it is frequently not enforced, as it not only deters foreigners from coming to this country, but baffles those who do come, should not the resources of the Central Office of Information be mobilised to explain this absurd order to the public, who are, perhaps, not quite so prejudiced in favour of austerity as the Ministry of Food seems to think?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the ordinary housewife does not think this order absurd, and while it is necessary for the domestic consumers to supplement their rationed food with unrationed food it would be wrong to encourage caterers to take up more than their fair share of unrationed food.
    Mr. Beswick: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that if there are visitors who are withholding visiting this country simply because they cannot get more than their share of the food which otherwise would go to the working-class people of this country, we can do without their visits; and would she also make it clear that these restrictions will continue until such time as they can be relaxed first of all for the benefit of the housewives of this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that most visitors to this country recognise our difficulties and are prepared to accept them.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow week.

    Tinned Cream
    Mr. T. Macphersonasked the Minister of Food if he will now remove the restrictions on import and sale of tinned cream.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Macpherson: In view of the approach of the soft fruit season and the fact that there are abundant supplies of milk in soft currency countries in Europe, would not my right hon. Friend reconsider allowing us to bring in this very welcome addition to our food?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend has overlooked a most important point and that is that we are importing butter from the soft currency countries—from Holland, Denmark and so on—and at the moment we prefer butter to cream.

    Plums (Export)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Food if he intends to allow the export of this season's plums.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. If the crop is sufficiently large we shall be prepared to recommend licences to export home-grown plums, provided they are of the cooking varieties and are not sent in containers needed for the home market.
    Mr. Williams: I should like to thank the right hon. Lady for the satisfactory nature of the reply.

    Sweets (De-rationing)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food if he can give an estimate of the average purchase of sweets and chocolates per head per week since the derationing of this product.
    Dr. Summerskill: As far as can be estimated the average purchase of sweets and chocolates per head during the first four weeks of de-rationing has been between 6 and 8 oz. per week.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the statement made on Monday that the question of

    1265
    sweet rationing would be taken up in the Autumn if there were not a full and proper supply by then, would my right hon. Friend say whether that would be reconsidered earlier in view of the difficult situation which exists at present with regard to obtaining sweets?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are having weekly reports on the situation.
    Mr. Keenan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this conveys no picture at all of the sweets position, and that in many districts, particularly in the Liverpool area, children cannot buy any sweets in present circumstances?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that my right hon. Friend told the House on Monday that he was very much concerned at the position and that, if necessary, we should reimpose rationing.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today even some of our Conservative constituents are writing to us asking for the reimposition of control?

    Canned Meat (Stocks)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Food the total stocks of canned meat held in reserve in the United Kingdom as compared to 1st January, 1948.
    Dr. Summerskill: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give this information.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Lady say whether she considers that the present stocks held are perfectly satisfactory?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am not prepared to commit myself, but I must remind the noble Lady that at this time in the Argentine we are negotiating for substantial supplies of canned meat. It would be quite wrong to give this information at the moment or even to answer her supplementary question.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If it is in order not to reveal details so as not to prejudice food negotiations, will the right hon. Lady say whether she is aware that negotiations in the Argentine could scarcely have gone worse even if the entire meat stocks had been disclosed?

    Oils and Fats
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food why he has forbidden a firm, particulars of which have been sent to him, to manufacture cooking fat from uncontrolled residue of codliver oil surplus to other requirements.
    Dr. Summerskill: All available supplies of suitable home produced oils and fats are needed to augment the supplies controlled by the Ministry. Negotiations with United Kingdom producers of cod-liver oil are already in hand for the purchase of any surplus oil which might he available.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that, both at the time when her Department took action and now, substantial quantities of this oil were both uncontrolled and surplus, and is it not a fact that the right hon. Lady's Department has forbidden the production of a useful cooking fat from materials which are not being used for any other purpose?
    Dr. Summerskill: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. In his Question he mentions a residue of codliver oil surplus to other requirements. This is not a residue that we are talking about. This is surplus cod-liver oil. He suggests that the residue might be used in another way. I am informed that it is quite impossible to extract vitamins A and D from codliver oil and then use the residue. In fact vitamins A and D disappear when this oil is hardened, or hydrogenated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that for two years past this firm has been doing what she suggests to be impossible—using oil from which the vitamins have been extracted to produce a palatable cooking fat? In view of the fact that her reply discloses complete ignorance of the position, will she reconsider the decision based on that ignorance?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman may have more scientific knowledge than I or my scientific advisers have, but I would not come to this Box and make this statement unless I had been advised by those men who tell me that it is quite impossible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Austin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this oil is more palatable than the venom which emanates from the hon. Gentleman opposite?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Lady say why, if her advice is right, she has taken steps to forbid an act which she states to be impossible?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am not forbidding an act which I say is impossible. We are prepared to buy the hardened codliver oil. I say that the vitamins A and D disappear when this oil is hardened, or hydrogenated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the Department's action has simply resulted in a reduction in the supply of cooking fats, I think it right that I should raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  KENYA

    Civil Service (Africans)
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an assurance that Makerere College is training Africans with a view to their taking up senior posts in the Kenya Civil Service; and whether he will examine the possibility of providing suitable posts specifically for Africans of suitable qualifications.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is certainly the aim of Makerere College to enable Africans to qualify for greater responsibilities in the public service of their territories. Wide opportunities already exist in the Kenya Service for Africans who have obtained qualifications at Makerere or elsewhere.
    Mr. Hynd: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no Africans in the higher posts in the Civil Service, and does he endorse the recent report of the East African Civil Service inquiry that it will be many years before any Africans will be capable of undertaking these posts?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As Africans make use of the opportunities now available to them, they will become qualified for the higher posts.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most important tasks of Makerere College is to turn out agricultural people who can teach the natives how to cultivate their land properly?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, that is a most important task.

    Councils (African Representation)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider substantially increasing the African representation on the Kenya Legislative Council, in view of the qualities the existing native representatives have shown and the heavy burden imposed on these four representatives of over five million Africans.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: African representation was increased from two to four last year. The question of African representation is reviewed from time to time.
    Mr. Hynd: As the increase last year was largely tentative, is my hon. Friend satisfied that these African members who were appointed have shown high qualities and, therefore, justify reconsideration of the number?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is a little early to reconsider a matter which has only been in operation for one year.
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advantages of appointing an African representative to the Executive Council for Kenya.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Although African interests are already represented on the Executive Council, my right hon. Friend appreciates the reasons advanced for the service of Africans on that body. The possibilities of making an appointment will be carefully considered from time to time.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: When will the Under-Secretary consider having more elected personnel on these bodies?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Elected personnel are never on the Executive body, which is an advisory body to the Governor.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Or any other body?

  TOGOLAND (HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the hospital and school accommodation in Togo-land now compared with three and 10 years ago respectively; and what progress

  1269
  in respect of these services is expected during the next five years.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has asked the Acting Governor to provide this information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): After the Business announced for consideration today, we are proposing to ask the House to consider Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and to the Agricultural Marketing Bill;
and also to take the Report stage of the Sea Fish Industry Money Resolution.
Tomorrow, after the Debate in Committee of Supply, we propose to take the Lords Amendments to the Mid-North-amptonshire Water Board Order Confirmation (Special Procedure) Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 109.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL

    Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISDICTION OF LANDS TRIBUNAL.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 23, at the end, insert:
    "(e) any question on which, but for this provision, an appeal or reference to the county court would or might be made by virtue of sections forty-nine, sixty-two or eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1948."
    3.44 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment affects a matter of Privilege, and I direct that the necessary entry be made in the Journal.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This was a Government Amendment providing that rating appeals should in future go to the Lands Tribunal established under this Bill instead of going, as they do now and have done recently, though not for long, to the county court. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) moved an Amendment to this effect, I think, on Report in this House, and he was kind enough to withdraw it on my undertaking that we would give the matter careful consideration. We have done that. We thought that the suggestion which he made was a meritorious one, and consequently we moved it into the Bill in another place.
    The Lands Tribunal will be an expert body specialising in the somewhat technical and difficult matters of valuation, and whilst I need hardly say that we have the highest regard for the county courts—indeed, we regard them as most important and competent tribunals—there will be great advantage to be obtained, both as regards uniformity of decision—all rating appeals going to the same tribunals—and the technical knowledge which the Lands Tribunal will possess. We think, therefore, that the Amendment will effect an improvement in the law relating to rating.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I merely rise to express the gratitude of the Opposition for the con-
    1274
    sideration given to this point which was first raised in the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). The Attorney-General has concisely stated the reasons for the Amendment. I need add nothing to commend them to the House, but again I say that we on this side are grateful for the way in which the matter has been dealt with.
    Colonel Dower: While appreciating that the Land Tribunals will be far more knowledgeable and will unquestionably have more uniformity in their actions, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the desirability of having local knowledge which will be so essential where people are either appealing to have their rates decreased, or where the rates have been increased? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether such appeals will be heard by people who have actual knowledge of the particular area?
    The Attorney-General: Of course, I cannot undertake that members of the Tribunal as constituted to hear a particular appeal will have special knowledge of the locality from which the appeal arises. That would be quite impossible in a tribunal which is a central tribunal of this kind, but the expert members of it, the surveyors, will be men of very wide experience, and, of course, they will be entitled to hear the evidence of other professional gentlemen with the necessary local knowledge.
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 21, at end, insert new Clause A:
    Any person aggrieved by the determination of a development charge by the Central Land Board under section seventy of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, may within twenty-eight days of the receipt by him of the notification of the development charge, appeal against such determination to the Lands Tribunal and the Lands Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear any such appeal and shall make such determination as it may think fit and section three of this Act shall apply to an appeal under this section.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment gives a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal to be

    1275
    established under the Bill in the case of development charges assessed by the Central Land Board under Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This is a matter which, on its merits, has already been considered and, if I may say so, very fully considered more than once in this House. It may or may not be the case—I shall say something about it later on—that there is some merit in the proposal in itself, but the Amendment providing for these appeals to this Tribunal seems to have been moved into this Bill in another place under a complete misapprehension in that other place both as to what the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, did and as to what the present Bill is intended to do and what it does.
    I venture to think that whatever the merits of the proposal that there should be an appeal from the Central Land Board's assessment of development value may be, this Amendment seeks to deal with the matter in a way which is wholly unworkable and inappropriate. It appears to have been thought in another place that this really very simple little Bill did something quite different from what it does. It appears to have been thought, and, indeed, it was stated—I think that in another place they proceeded on this basis—that this Bill created a new right of appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act which had not existed before, and so it was said that as a new right of appeal was being created under that Act in one case, it ought also to be created in another case. That argument, if it is true, is always an attractive one, although it is not always a quite valid one, but, of course, if it is not true, it hardly amounts to an argument at all.
    The position under the Town and Country Planning Act is this, and it appears not to have been understood by the noble Lords at all; under the Act as it exists at present—and it is not amended in this respect by the Bill; or, at any rate, it was not amended until this Amendment was moved in another place—development valuations arise in two quite distinct and separate connections. Under Section 60 of the Act an assessment has to be made of the lost development rights in connection with claims to compensation against the £300 million
    1276
    which is set aside for this purpose. That is the first occasion in this connection in which an assessment has to be made of development rights.
    Under Section 70, an assessment is made of the amount of the development charge which has to be paid by the owner of land when he is developing his land under a development permission. These are the two cases in which the question of development value arises and, under the Act, the assessment in the first place, under Section 60, is made in the first instance by the Central Land Board and is appealable from that Board to the official arbitrator. That was the position as laid down in the Act at the time when it was passed in 1947. Under Section 70, on the other hand, no appeal from the decision of the Central Land Board was provided for and what seems to have happened in another place, as far as we can judge—or at any rate as far as I am entitled to say in this House—was that the noble Lords appear to have been misled by the fact that in this Bill we are proposing to transfer the functions of the official arbitrators to the Lands Tribunal into thinking that we were creating a new right of appeal in the cases arising under Section 60, where no such right of appeal had existed before, so they say, "If you do that, if you create a new right of appeal from the Lands Tribunal under Section 60, why do you not do it under Section 70?"
    As I said, that would be a very proper and a very attractive argument, if it were true; but it is not true. Under Section 60 the appeal to the official arbitrator, previously, and under this Bill the appeal to the Lands Tribunal, was created by the Act itself and Parliament, for reasons which no doubt satisfied it at the time, decided that there ought to be a right of appeal in the case of the assessment under Section 60 but that there ought not to be a right of appeal in the case of the assessment under Section 70; and this Bill in no way touched what had been done by Parliament in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
    All that this Bill pretended to do, all that it seeks to do by its long title, is to transfer the existing rights of appeal away from the official arbitrators to this new tribunal which is established in their place. It does not, I think, appear to have been sufficiently realised that this

    1277
    Bill is purely a machinery Bill, designed to improve the administration and the procedure of the existing law, but not in any way to alter the substantive law itself. I am bound to say—and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will have in mind very much what I mean—that if in procedural Bills of this kind, where we are seeking to improve the machinery of the law, attempts are made to introduce matters of principle and to bring about changes in the substantive law itself, it will be very much more difficult for those of us who, like the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, want at least to reform the procedural and machinery part of our law. The fact is that the present Bill is a Bill designed and intended simply to do that—not to effect any change at all in the substantive part of the law but to improve the machinery and the procedure by which the law as it exists today can be operated.
    That is the main ground on which I must resist this Amendment. There are a number of other grounds. For instance, the Amendment apparently does not apply to Scotland. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate beside me, and he may have some views about that, but I should have thought it would be quite inappropriate, and it might have occurred to another place to have been quite inappropriate, to have a system of appeal from the Central Land Board in England under this provision and not to have a like system in operation under the corresponding provisions for Scotland.
    But, more important than that point, which no doubt could be dealt with, is perhaps this: that if we are to have an appeal from the decision of the Central Land Board under Section 70—and the arguments for that and against it were fully deployed in 1947 when the Bill was debated—we must have some kind of code of assessment of development value on which the appeal can be founded. That is, in fact, the position in connection with appeals under Section 60, in connection with claims against the £300 million. In that case there is an elaborate code of assessment laid down and the question which the official arbitrator has to consider when a matter on appeal conies to him is whether or not the Central Land Board have applied the code correctly in the circumstances of the particular case.
    1278
    Of course, where there is a code setting out the rules and principles on which the compensation is to be assessed, that may be very apt matter for appeal, but in respect of the development charge to be levied by the Central Land Board under Section 70 of the Act no precise code has been provided.
    The House will remember that the matter is governed in part by the Act and in part by regulations under the Act, and the Act and the regulations taken together leave the Central Land Board a very wide discretion as to the amount of the development charge which should be levied. The regulations were approved by Parliament and it was no doubt the intention of this House, both in passing the Bill and in assenting to the regulations, that the Central Land Board should have that discretion. The governing principle on which the charge is levied is that the charge shall be such
    "… as to secure as far as is practicable that land can be freely bought and sold at a price neither greater nor less than its value for its existing use value."
    But then the regulations go on to say that the charge
    "shall not be more than the amount which, to the satisfaction of the Central Land Board"—
    and these are the words which I emphasise, because these are the operative words, giving a discretion to the Central Land Board and not to anybody else—
    "represents the additional value due to planning permission."
    Then, again, the regulations go on to say that it shall not be less than that amount unless in the opinion of the Central Land Board there are special reasons why it should, in fact, be less. That is the general position under the Act and under the regulations, and in quite a wide variety of cases the Central Land Board is given power to apply the general governing principle which I have mentioned, subject to such modifications as, in their opinion, are appropriate to the particular case.
    4.0 p.m.
    We are not unfamiliar in this House with statutes or regulations which provide that something may be done by a Minister, by some tribunal, by some Government Department, "if it is satisfied," "if it considers it expedient," "if he regards it as being in the public interest." Where matters are fairly and squarely vested in the discretion or opinion of one

    1279
    Minister or tribunal or Department in that way we cannot have an appeal on those matters to another tribunal unless we transfer the same discretion to that other tribunal. This Amendment which has been moved into the Bill in another place does not attempt to do this, and no doubt very wisely; but if the Bill went through in its present form with this Amendment in it, and appeals took place to the Lands Tribunal, the Tribunal would have to say—as over and over again the courts say when appeals are sought to be made to the courts in cases where something has to be decided by a Minister or Department, "if he considers it expedient," "if he is satisfied," "if in his opinion," and so on—"This is an attempt to substitute for the opinion of the board and the discretion of the board the opinion of the Lands Tribunal, but we are not entitled under this statute to have an opinion in the matter at all."
    The statute—the 1947 Act, I mean—fairly and squarely places the responsibility for being satisfied, for forming an opinion about those matters, on the Central Land Board, and if the Central Land Board says it is satisfied that the charge should be so and so, or that it is satisfied that, for particular reasons, it should be more or should be less, then, "We have no authority," the Tribunal would have to say, "to interfere with its decision and to substitute our decision and our discretion for that of the Central Land Board, which is vested with responsibility in the matter."
    It may be—I do not know—that on the merits, after there has been experience of the working of the Town and Country Planning Act, there may be something to be said for providing a system of appeals under Section 70. I do not know; I am expressing no opinion on it; but I can quite understand that there is an arguable case, on the merits of the matter, that there may be something to be said for that. I am not conceding it, and not debating it; it would not be my province so to do; but if there were such a case on the merits for having a system of appeal, then—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this—it would be essential to work out a more precise code to guide the Central Land Board and the Lands Tribunal in dealing with the matter. We should have to have a code binding the Central Land Board,
    1280
    and we should have to have the possibility of the Land Tribunal's considering whether, in a particular case, the Central Land Board had departed from that code or not. Until we laid down a code of that kind any system of appeal such as is envisaged in this Amendment would be, in my submission, completely abortive.
    I have said that I am not dealing with the merits of the question whether or not there should be an appeal. It is enough to say that the present Clause is wholly inapt, and the merits of the proposal would require much greater consideration than has been given to it, or than it would be proper to give to it in a machinery Bill of this kind. It is quite clear, I think, that if an appeal were provided under Section 70 it would be necessary to amend the Town and Country Planning Act itself, because that Act was drafted on the basis that there would be no appeal from the decisions under Section 70.
    I am quite sure and must so advise the House, that the present Clause would have had to be drafted in an entirely different way, and embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act itself, if it had been intended to provide such an appeal. I am quite sure that in another place this Amendment would never have been moved into this Bill at all, and it would have been appreciated that wholly different considerations applied to the matter, if it had not been thought mistakenly that we were creating a new right of appeal under Section 60, and that therefore there was no reason why we should not create it under Section 70, too. But that, in fact, was not what we were doing. All we seek to do here is to transfer existing rights of appeal to what we think would be a more effective tribunal.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the House the advice we have just heard, because I find myself in complete disagreement with him, and I propose to advise in the contrary sense, namely, that we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed happier, if I may say so, when dealing with the technicalities with his usual skill, than he was in dealing with the merits of this proposal. I detected, I thought in his speech a desire—to put it at its lowest—not to pledge himself to the theory that it is an

    1281
    inequitable or a wrong thing to give one of His Majesty's subjects a right of appeal against a decision made against him.
    To clear up one preliminary matter, I do not agree with his interpretation of the course that was taken in another place, or of the arguments on which this Amendment was urged in another place. It is true that there was sought a right of appeal, based upon the fact that appeal is transferred to this Tribunal under Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act; but I do not think the argument was that because it was allowed in Section 60 it ought to be allowed in Section 70. I think the contrast of the two sections was to show that the matters which are to be decided by the Tribunal under Section 60 are precisely matters of the same kind as fall for decision under Section 70, and that, therefore, the Tribunal which we are now setting up for the first time, is a fit and proper body to hear these appeals, the right to which should be given.
    Contrary to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's method of dealing with this matter, I propose to base my argument in favour of agreement with the Amendment upon the merits rather than upon the technicalities of the case. I realise, of course, that on the narrow ground of a Lords Amendment I cannot develop a very wide front of discussion and that I must confine myself very strictly to those defects in the present system which, I think, would be much mitigated or ameliorated by the acceptance of this Amendment. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, at present there is no right of appeal from the determination of a development charge by the Central Land Board. This determination, in fact, as the system now works, is a determination by the district valuer in the district. This was a point of acute controversy between us during the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, and we on this side argued that there should be such a right of appeal; but we were overborne by numbers and the Guillotine.
    The argument put against us, and the argument which has been repeated again in another place on this matter of the merits apart from the technicalities, was that this power to fix development charges must be elastic, so that it could be used, in short, as an instrument of planking policy to encourage development in one place and to discourage it in
    1282
    another, so that where we wanted to encourage development we could fix a low charge and where we wanted to discourage it we could fix the charge at the maximum. It was said, therefore, from that—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument today had echoes of that argument—that this determination took into account matters of planning policy, and that it was more a matter of administration than a subject fitted for judicial decision. Therefore it was not a matter which could be properly dealt with by way of an appeal to a tribunal.
    We are wiser now than we were when the Town and Country Planning Act was going through, in that we have had nearly a year's experience of its operation. I think that it is incontrovertible that events have shown that this argument based on the administrative and elastic character of the determination is quite baseless when one appeals to the facts as they exist today. Is it asserted in any way that district valuers are instruments of planning policy? They have had no instructions to modify the charge according to whether or not the development is more or less desirable; of course not. Whatever may have been in the mind of the Government when they proposed this particular passage of the Town and Country Planning Act, it is quite clear that there has been a change in the policy since then, and that argument no longer holds water.
    I have to rely on cases reported either in the Press or by my numerous correspondents on this subject, but I tell the House that there is no doubt in my mind that matters of planning policy enter not at all into the determination of the development charge. The "Liverpool Echo" on 9th February described the case of a Mr. Crook who is a chemist and sub-postmaster at Park Gate, near Liverpool. Being anxious for his customers' convenience, he wanted to move to premises next door and set up a post office there so that he might have more counter space. The Central Land Board demanded a development charge of £100. The General Post Office took the matter up on behalf of their sub-postmaster, and they told the Central Land Board that in the interests of the public service it was considered imperative to have the post office transferred to more suitable accommodation. They asked that the £100 charge be either

    1283
    waived altogether or reduced, as this was a matter of public interest.
    I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) took the matter up with the Central Land Board; at least the newspaper so reports, and it says that Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the distinguished Chairman of the Central Land Board, wrote back and said, among other things:
    "There are no provisions whereby Mr. Crook can be granted exemption from payment, even though the post office authorities consider the development desirable."
    There is a clear case of public interest on which there is no dispute by the Post Office itself, which is a very good judge of the convenience of its customers. Another Government Department accepts that in the public interest the post office should be enlarged, and yet the Central Land Board have no power—and I take Sir Malcolm's word for it because he operates the Act—to modify the charge according to the public interest.
    If that be the case, the determination of a development charge becomes a matter of simple survey and valuation and, as such, it immediately comes into the category of disputes, as to which there should be a right of appeal. It is a question for decision exactly on all fours with the question under Clause 60, and exactly on all fours with the rating appeals on which we have today accepted an Amendment to bring before this very Tribunal. There seems to be no argument that can be founded on the practice that exists at the moment to justify refusing this right of appeal to this admirable body constituted for the purpose. The fact is that the Central Land Board and the district valuers, who, in fact, do the work, are tied hand and foot by extremely vague regulations which are precise only in one particular, namely, that they must extort in every case the full difference between the value of the land with permission and without permission to change its use. I repeat that I think that it is quite idle to argue that these charges are determined or even affected by planning considerations, or that they are not a fit subject for submission to this tribunal.
    4.15 p.m.
    I would, therefore, say that in fact the way the thing has worked, and what we
    1284
    seek to remedy by urging the House to accept this Amendment, is that the whole scheme of development charges has become degraded into a mere haggle between two parties. On the one hand, we have been told by Government spokesmen that the Central Land Board, which is, in fact, the district valuer, has something to sell, and they proceed to sell it for the best price they can; we have the Central Land Board as the Duke of Omnium with complete monopoly. On the other side of the haggle, we have the bewildered and disjointed army of would-be developers. The whole thing seems to savour more of the Eastern bazaar than a system of taxation under Western democracy. The seller always asks more than he thinks he will get. If the buyer pays up without demur the more fool he. If the buyer makes a protest against the price it depends entirely on how much trouble he makes as to how far the price will be abated.
    The case has been cited of the Union Club who were ejected from Carlton House Terrace because their premises were required by a Government Department. They found alternative premises in two houses in Grosvenor Square, Nos. 33 and 34. No planning consideration was involved because there was no question of the appearance of the houses in the Square being altered. It was merely that instead of two houses being separately occupied, they were to be occupied by a private and residential club. The Square looked just the same whether the houses were occupied by a club or by two householders, yet the development charge was £60,000. Agents for the club went to the Central Land Board and argued the matter, and almost at once, so I am told the £60,000 was reduced to £35,000. That is to say, £25,000 was knocked off the original payment. Here the same body—the Central Land Board make the determination of the development charge in respect of the same change in identical premises and there is £25,000 difference between the two figures. My argument is briefly this: Both these determinations cannot possibly be right. Who can be confident that either of the determinations is right? How can it be argued that there should not be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in such a case?
    As I see it, there are three sources of injustice in the present system of leaving it to the haggle between the Central Land

    1285
    Board and the would-be developer without a right of appeal—sources of injustice which I say, the right of appeal to this independent highly-skilled body would do a great deal to mitigate. I have mentioned the first of these sources of injustices already, namely, that the Central Land Board is a monopoly. One cannot have a fair haggle with a monopoly which in fact dictates the price. There must be a competition between sellers before the buyer has a chance in a haggle. This Lords Amendment would, if accepted, at least give people aggrieved by the price charged by the monopoly, the right of appeal.
    The second source of injustice is that the developer has to some extent always committed himself before applying for the development charge to be determined. He has spent money, it may be in buying in the land; he has gone to a lot of trouble in obtaining planning permission, bye-law permission, and licences to build. When he is faced with a demand for a development charge he has either to submit to the charge or to lose the fruits of his- past expense and his labour. The other party to the so-called haggle, the Central Land Board, is in no such case; it can sit back and let things take their course, a very different position from that of the other party to the haggle.
    For example, on a man who is anxious to build a house for his family, time presses with an urgent insistence; every day that passes without his getting nearer to his objective is a day of frustration. As between the Central Land Board and the developer it is a question of "Your money or your time," and in such an urgent matter as the provision of a home for a family, time is almost as important, or seems as important, as life itself.
    The third source of injustice in having these charges determined without any right of appeal arises out of the facts I have already stated. It is true that the Union Club can deploy against the Central Land Board an imposing force of skilled advisers. I do not know what it cost the club by way of professional fees, but certainly not as much as the £25,000 by which the development charge was reduced. But the small man has not got those resources; the ex-soldier who is trying to build himself a house with his gratuity and the small shopkeeper
    1286
    who desires to improve his premises, cannot be expected to be so pugnacious; the demand for a development charge comes to him in a letter written on official paper, curtly phrased in the language which it is customary for His Majesty's servants to adopt when addressing His Majesty's subjects. That man finds that he has no right of appeal; he is up against the Government. In these circumstances what can a man do but suffer in silence, with perhaps what Shakespeare calls:
    "curses not loud, but deep."
    When I hear of cases where on protest development charges have been reduced or waived I am worried to think of the many cases where small men have suffered, it may be, wrong assessments, and no one has heard about them.
    Mr. McGhee: Oh, yes, they have.
    Mr. Morrison: Not all. We may hear of some; but when we hear of some we know that there are many about which we never hear. The figures are indeed small in comparison with those I have quoted about the Union Club, but they are sometimes very large compared with the resources of the man affected.
    Acceptance of this Lords Amendment would, in my judgment, have the following beneficial results on what is rapidly becoming a deplorable situation. The institution of a central appeal body would remove the sense of unfairness arising from the arbitrary determination of these matters by a body which is judge in its own case. In the second place, it would tend to make much more uniform the wide variation in the assessment of these charges in different parts of the country. At present these variations are so wide that they give the whole process a capricious look which tends to bring it into disrespect.
    The learned Attorney-General put before us the argument that there would need to be a code developed. What better way of developing a code is there than to have a series of appeals to a central body? In the matter of rating appeals we thoroughly agree with the wise course the Government took in letting them come to this body, because it is desirable to have a code which is applicable over the whole country. If we adopted this course it would result, in time, long or short—

    1287
    and with assistance a short time—in a code of a uniform and just character being developed. This has invariably been the result of setting up a central independent authority which can pass in review a number of cases brought before it. It has, after all, to work out a code for its own guidance, and in time that code becomes recognised and binding throughout the country on those who administer that branch of the law.
    Lastly, I think that the mere fact that a decision by a man called on to make a decision in a matter which can be reviewed by a superior body has a good effect upon the man making the decision. I make no charges against district valuers; they are a very worthy body of men; but they have too much to do, besides having this great load of assessing development charges thrust upon them. They would, I think, welcome the right of an appeal in the open against their decisions.
    There can be no doubt that this Tribunal is the right body for this purpose. It was not in existence when we argued this matter at the earlier stages, but now that it has been composed of men specially qualified to deal with precisely this sort of valuation matter, now that practice has disclosed that the development charge is determined without any regard to policy or public interest but simply on the basis of valuation, there can be no real argument for not accepting this suggestion and letting this specially constituted body act as an appeal tribunal against assessments of development charges.
    I really do not understand why the Government do not accept this Lords Amendment. I do not see what they would lose by accepting it. It would go a very long way towards removing a widespread complaint and a sense of injustice and uncertainty which is hampering all development at the present time, including the provision of houses. I regret that these development charges have got into such ill-repute with the public, and that they are invariably associated with the statute out of which they spring, the Town and Country Planning Act, because I have the uneasy feeling that the resentment which is felt against the method of assessment and enforcement today reacts against the whole case of planning and makes people think that all town and
    1288
    country planning is nonsense, and consequently produces in them an unco-operative attitude towards it. I am sure that if this Lords Amendment were accepted, if the public could be assured that it is the desire of the Government and of all who are interested in town and country planning to make the justice of the procedure abundantly and manifestly clear, it would be a very great service, not only in the narrow field we are now discussing but to the cause of town and country planning itself.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: The question of giving the Lands Tribunal jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the assessment of a development charge is extremely important. Under Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Central Land Board has to have regard to the amount by which the value of the land with the benefit of planning permission, exceeds the value of the land without the benefit of planning permission. The wording of that section suggested to a great many people that there would be a considerable degree of discretion left to the Central Land Board in the determination of the development charge. I take the view that the more judicial discretion is left to the Central Land Board in the assessment of the development charge the more reason there is for thinking that appeal from the Board should be possible.
    The effect of the regulations, however, subsequent to the passing of the Act, is to reduce the element of discretion and to that extent to reduce the need for appeal—I do not say "eliminate it," because I think there is a strong argument for appeal. I do say, however, that the effect of the regulations is to reduce the strength of the argument. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) mentioned that at one time in the development of town and country planning policy, it might have been expected that considerations of planning policy would play a part in the determination of the development charge by the Central Land Board. On my understanding of the matter, the regulations which govern the assessment of the development charge positively exclude consideration of all questions of planning policy, and lay down that, as a general rule, the charge should be equal to the increment in value added by the

    1289
    grant of planning permission. The consequence of the regulations, therefore, is that this matter of the assessment of development charge becomes much less a matter of judicial discretion and much more a matter of strict valuation. Decisions are becoming less appropriate for reference to a quasi-judicial body like the Lands Tribunal.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Would not exactly the same considerations apply in respect of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land?
    Mr. Irvine: I feel that rather different considerations would apply. The whole basis of my argument is that the wider the discretion of the Central Land Board, the more ground there is for an appeal to a quasi-judicial tribunal. In what was originally contemplated under the Act as considerations that were to play a part in effecting the assessment of development charge, there were wider considerations of discretion, like questions of planning policy, to be taken into account than would be taken into account in questions affecting the determination of value in the case of compulsory acquisition. According to my understanding of the matter, on a reading of the statute, the original intention was that the very widest discretion should be exercised, and that a very large number of facts should be taken into account in determining the development charge—a greater number than would be taken into account in determining the appropriate figure for compensation for compulsory purchase.
    Mr. Molson: But is it not exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman has just said? If, in the original arrangement under the statute, it was intended that a large number of administrative considerations should be taken into account, that planning considerations should apply, then in that case it would not be appropriate perhaps if there was an appeal to a judicial tribunal. Under Statutory Instrument No. 1189, however, there is to be a precisely determinable assessment being 100 per cent. of the increase in the value. Surely that is a case where there ought to be an appeal to a quasi-judicial tribunal.
    Mr. Irvine: It is a question for the House, and I agree that the point of view expressed by the hon. Member may
    1290
    be arguable; but the conclusion I have arrived at, without any doubt, is that the fewer the number of facts which are to be taken into account, the less the degree of discretion which is to be exercised by the Central Land Board in consideration of these various factors, the less important it is that there should be a right of appeal. I can understand another view being taken, but that is my view. As the matter becomes more one of strict valuation, it becomes less appropriate that there should be a right of appeal to a quasi-judicial body.
    It is true that the charge may be less under the regulations than the value of planning permission, if that is necessary to ensure that the land passes into the open market at the existing use value. That is a qualification which exists in the regulations. If it were not for that, then the development charge would be simply the value of the planning permission. The consideration of that qualification invites the exercise of certain discretion, but it is extremely vague and on this particular aspect of the matter I should have thought that there was no answer to the proposition put forward by the Attorney-General—that it is quite hopeless to expect a quasi-judicial body like the Lands Tribunal to determine the development charge without having an express and precise code on which to base its decisions. It is all very well to suggest that a code may be built up in practice as decisions are made and as time passes, but in my view the first assessments by the Lands Tribunal would be made on such vague grounds that it would take an extremely long time for any satisfactory code to be arrived at and then very unsatisfactory results would ensue, in practice, in regard to the first appeals to the Tribunal.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Amend the regulations.
    Mr. Irvine: The regulations have done two things: first, they have reduced the scope of the discretion in the assessment of the development charge and have to that extent made the Central Land Board's decisions less appropriate for review by a body like the Lands Tribunal; second, where they have left discretion, they have left it so vague that I doubt whether it would be reasonable to expect a judicial body to deal with it in the

    1291
    absence of a precise code. Although for these reasons I would not support the Lords Amendment, I think it right to express on this side of the House some of the anxiety which is undoubtedly felt in all parts at the extremely arbitary powers which exist in the Central Land Board for the determination of the development charge. I think that is felt by everybody, and I have no doubt that the Land Board itself is extremely conscious of it.
    I hope it may be possible for the Government to agree—I mentioned this in the course of the Second Reading Debate—under Clause 4, which deals with the power to add to the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal, to adopt a form of words by which, as time passes and as this great experiment develops, it will be possible to extend the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal to deal with the assessment of development charge in certain cases. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they will, at least, explore the possibility of doing that. I am suggesting something quite different from an appeal, because what Clause 4 contemplates is Orders in Council, which will have the effect of giving jurisdiction in certain matters to the Lands Tribunal instead of to other bodies at present possessing jurisdiction. In other words, it is a transfer of jurisdiction on the question of appeal. I will only add that, for the reasons I have given and the considerations to which I have referred, I give my full support to the Government in recommending the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: I have seen this afternoon what many of us have seen over the years, that is, a case coming to a certain point in the hands of solicitors and perhaps of junior counsel, and then, when it comes to the great man himself, the leader, one learns that all the argumentative merits which one had so keenly studied will not do. The leader says, "I cannot hope to run that case that way. This is the winning argument; this is the only argument we can make." The noble Lord who spoke for the Government in another place embarked on an argument on the merits of the Amendment and said that it would not do because of this or that. No doubt he
    1292
    had to do that because he had to convince the tribunal before which he was then appearing.
    But the Attorney-General knows better than to venture to discuss the merits. Indeed, he admits there is something in the Amendment, but he takes the perfectly safe line that it will not do in a procedure Bill, and that it will be very awkward in future on procedure Bills if we insist on discussing on them what a noble Lord discussed in another place—the merits of the matter. Quite frankly, I am not impressed. There may be certain inconveniences if we muddle up the law with procedure Bills. The essential thing, however, is that we are not here as a High Court or anything of that kind, but as a legislative body trying to do the best we can for the country and to make Acts of Parliament work. If between 1947 and now, difficulties have appeared in the statute, our duty is to put them right, and this is our chance to do so. There undoubtedly has been some real difficulty about the position of the Land Board. Is it a judicial or quasi-judicial body? May it have regard to town planning considerations, and thereby let some man off with a charge lighter mathematically than he ought to pay, or is it a mere valuing body? Again, is it only a haggling body? The evidence is that that is what it is becoming.
    The development value of land has been taken away by statute from the individual owners and is now vested in one great landowner, namely, the State. If I desire to develop my land, I go along to the landlord to buy the development rights for that patch of land. I have no real bargaining power, there is no competition; and if I do not like what the landlord says, all I can do is to refrain from development. It may be, of course, that I have bought my land, and I have been imprudent enough to go ahead with the development. In that case, I may have to pay and lose money over it. But as people become educated, such cases will become more rare, People will not develop.
    4.45 p.m.
    Any pretence that the Board are acting judicially cannot be maintained in the face of the Union Club case or other cases which came before another place and which showed very wide disparities.

    1293
    I am not blaming the Central Land Board. It may be their duty to get the best bargain for the taxpayer and build up the fund as soon as possible, but if a man holds the Government up to ransom when they want land, he is very properly brought to book and made to sell at a proper figure. If the Government hold up land to secure a higher price when the taxpayers wants to use it for a proper purpose, then I should use words once used by an eminent statesman in the Gorringe case, and say that that is not business but blackmail. It is far more potent than the blackmail of the Duke of Leinster or the Marquis of Bute—I forget which. For the State to use blackmail, backed up by the whole power of the State, is wrong. This matter should go to an impartial tribunal for a proper assessment.
    I was much impressed by the suggestions made from the Government side, particularly by one hon. Member who referred to the merits. He did it with such moderation and such submission to the Government point of view on this particular matter that I do not think the most censorious could accuse him of mutiny and have him castigated. He was well within the limits which may be allowed even within a properly-disciplined party. It may be that there will have to be new regulations, or it may be that a practice can be built up very rapidly by a series of law decisions. I am not at all certain that it is not the best way to do it, for sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way home in these matters. The final point I wish to make is that this is a measure of simple justice. The only arguments put against the Amendment are purely legalistic ones which we ought not to contemplate. For my part I refuse to accept a legalism instead of doing what is a common justice.
    Mr. Molson: I regret that the Attorney-General in his speech confined himself so entirely to the purely technical aspect of this matter. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is here. I was surprised to find the Lord Chancellor saying that he had received no complaints with regard to the development charge made by the Central Land Board. Perhaps the reason for that is that the more appropriate Member of the Government to whom these complaints might be
    1294
    brought would be the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): I gladly re-echo what the Lord Chancellor said. The amount of complaint that we have received about the development charge is negligible.
    Mr. Molson: I can only say that I am astonished. Certainly, as I go about the country making political speeches, that is one of the many points on which I have been asked questions. People want to know what the attitude of the Opposition would be and whether we would continue to operate this Measure. Not once, but several times, I have had complaints about the way in which the development charge is preventing people from building houses or doing anything in the way of developing their houses or building garages.
    It did appear as though this was an opportunity of reviewing the way that part of the Act of 1947 is actually operating. It was said by the Attorney-General that this matter had been discussed several times as the Bill was passing through its various stages, but at that time we were discussing only what we thought would be the consequences of the different Clauses of the Measure. That Measure has now been upon the Statute Book for a considerable time and we are now able to point to cases where the Central Land Board has sought to assess development charges that in many cases have been found to be so high that the would-be developer has refused to develop. As a result of that, the Central Land Board has reduced the charge which it proposed to make.
    I am sure that we all listened with interest and attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). The fact that he warned the Government that there was widespread concern throughout the country may induce the Parliamentary Secretary to make further inquiries about the matter. I speak not as one who has been hostile to the principles of that Measure. I am anxious that it shall work in a satisfactory way. I did warn the Government at the time when Statutory Instrument No. 1189 was being discussed that I was afraid that making the development charge 100 per cent. of the increment in value would be to discourage development throughout

    1295
    the country. I believe that is what has happened. I find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Member for Edge Hill when he says that he thinks there is now less ground for an appeal to a quasi-judicial authority than there was at an earlier stage when it appeared as though a greater measure of discretion would be left to the Central Land Board.
    When a board has been set up which is to consist of expert and experienced administrators and where the board is told to take a large number of practical considerations into account, it is manifestly more difficult to go to a tribunal and ask the tribunal to overrule the Central Land Board on the ground that its decision was wrong because that decision was arrived at after taking a number of imponderable factors into account. The effect of Statutory Instrument 1189 was to provide that the maximum and minimum charge, except in special cases to which the Attorney-General referred, is the actual increment in the land value, due to the development permission being granted. That is a determinable figure, although it is not easily determined. At any rate it is a figure that can be determined according to the learning of the profession of valuers. I took down the words which the Attorney-General used in commending the first of the Lords Amendments. He spoke about this new Tribunal which is being set up as specializing in these difficult and technical matters of valuation.
    The Attorney-General: I think I said rating valuation. I certainly was speaking in that context. I should like to make it clear that that was what I meant. There are few branches of the law more complicated than the law of rating, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Molson: That is certainly true. I do not press the point now that the Attorney-General has given the explanation. I agree that there are few branches more difficult and technical than that dealing with rating. I will offer one suggestion as to what branch is more difficult and technical and that is to assess what is the increased value of land after planning permission is given.
    The Attorney-General: There is no law on the subject.
    Mr. Molson: Well, that may be so, and I will take the Attorney-General's
    1296
    point. In that case, how entirely unsatisfactory it must be for the subject when there are no precisely determinable principles that can be laid down, that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the Central Land Board. I understand that very little direction has been given by the Central Land Board to the district valuers who are required to arrive at those determinations. Writing to a firm of valuers in order to obtain some information about the actual practice of the Land Board in this respect, I found that that firm were entirely satisfied with the attitude of the district valuers. They went on to say:
    "They have had no directions at all as to how the amount of the charge shall be arrived at and are quite prepared to listen to any suggestions."
    The Attorney-General: Who said that?
    Mr. Molson: That was from a firm of valuers to whom I wrote when I was asking for information upon this subject. What could be more unsatisfactory than that the subject should be completely at the mercy of the unguided district valuers, acting on behalf of the Central Land Board which has a compete monopoly of land development in the country? As my right hon. Friend has emphasised, there may be some large and wealthy concerns like the Union Club which are in a position to put up a fight and to insist that there shall be a reduction. It is the duty of this House to have regard to the interests of the small man who may have bought a piece of land with the intention of building a house there. Suddenly he finds that he is obliged to pay a very large additional sum of money.
    There was just such a case in Bury St. Edmunds. Mr. James Leggett had purchased a bit of land 23½ feet by 160 feet, for £200 and was about to build upon it his future home. The authorities cited the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, by virtue of which the existing use value of his plot was only £6, and told him that he should not have paid £200 but only £6. On the principle presumably of caveat emptor, they proceeded to make a development charge of £194 for permission to build his future house upon the plot of land which he had bought for that purpose. That is a case in point, and I am willing to give the Government full particulars of it.

    1297
    5.0 p.m.
    I do not wish to take up too much time, but these cases are so important and widespread that I venture to give another example. This was in Tunbridge Wells where two lots of accommodation land were put up for sale. The first, of approximately two acres, let at £4 per annum with an existing use value of £120. The second was five acres, let at £5, with an existing use value of about £150. Although the auctioneer had forewarned the bidders that the Act attacked the sale price of such land and that they must beware of liability for development charge, those two plots of land were sold for £400 and £1,300, respectively. What was of great interest was that the local authority were under-bidders at £1,200.
    One cannot get away from the serious consequences which are arising all over the country merely by saying, as the Attorney-General has done, that this is only a machinery Measure. If it is the case that a new and expert tribunal is being set up for the purpose of dealing with these difficult matters of the valuation of land, then surely this is a good opportunity for giving a similar right of appeal in the case of development charge to the same tribunal.
    Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member allow me to interrupt? These cases are interesting. What does he suggest an appeal tribunal should do in such cases where apparently the purchases were made after the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act?
    Mr. Molson: The point I am making is that in the case of these development charges the Central Land Board apparently does not even claim that this is a precise calculation of the increase in the value of the land which is due to the planning permission being granted. In fact, what they are trying to do—and they regard it as being their duty to do so—is to obtain the highest price they can for the development rights in the land. I am saying that this is having a serious consequence. It is resulting in great injustice to many individuals, especially to the smaller men who are not able to afford professional fees, that the Central Land Board is not issuing directions to the district valuers and that there is, therefore, great need for a tribunal to which an appeal can be made to secure uniformity.
    1298
    Finally, we were given an interesting piece of information by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on 27th January with regard to the reliability of the estimates of the district valuers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that out of 1,380 cases the district valuer's precise figure was upheld in only 50 cases. If that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer informs the House of Commons, then there is surely a strong case for a central tribunal to which an appeal can be made from the decisions of the district valuers.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Perhaps the most significant thing about the proceedings this afternoon is that the opposition to the Amendment from another place has so far been defended only by two hon. Members—by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). It is also significant that neither of those two speeches contained anything like a robust defence of the principle with which they were associated. The Attorney-General, in the main, confined his argument to the inadvisability, if not the impropriety of trying to alter the Town and Country Planning Act by a procedural Bill such as the Lands Tribunal Bill. So far as the merits were concerned, he had not a great deal to say, and conspicuously less than his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place.
    So far as the hon. Member for Edge Hill was concerned, I think the House will agree that the most convincing parts of his speech were those in which he conceded the disquiet felt at the absence of an appeal and the necessity of doing something to meet that disquiet. Indeed, I formed the impression not only that that was the most convincing part of his speech, objectively speaking, so far as the House was concerned, but that that was the part of his speech of which he felt the most convinced. Indeed, he ended by recommending not an appeal but something which I should have thought was even a bolder step, the transference of the jurisdiction to fix development charges from the Central Land Board to the Lands Tribunal. I think the hon. Member will appreciate that that would not be possible under Clause 4 of the Bill because the Central Land Board is not a statutory tribunal. However, the spirit of his suggestion clearly indicated

    1299
    that, in his view, radical measures were required to meet the unsatisfactory situation existing at present.
    Those being the only two defences put up so far in this House, it is clear that some onus rests upon the Government to show that an appeal from the decision of the Central Land Board is not a necessary, desirable and practicable thing. I thought the Attorney-General treated the proceedings of another place in a somewhat cavalier and contemptuous manner. I myself would hesitate long before dismissing the view with which three former Lord Chancellors associated themselves as being erroneous, and taken under a misapprehension of law.
    The Attorney-General: It is unfortunate that I am not permitted by the Rules of Order to quote the speech of the noble Lord. In the main I was referring to the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords in commending to the noble Lords the Amendment he was proposing. My hon. Friend will find it in the last paragraph of column 362 of the Report. If, after reading that paragraph, he thinks I have done the noble Lord any injustice, he will no doubt say so, but I am quite confident that he will find that I put the matter in the most euphemistic way that it could be put.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not there refer to the speech in which this Amendment was moved. There is the authority of the three former Lord Chancellors that this Amendment would be a beneficial addition to the Statute Book. I am sure he will agree with me that such authorities should not be lightly brushed aside.
    The Attorney-General: I do not contest that they took the view, on the merits, that it would be a good thing to have an appeal. What I said was that they proceeded under a complete misapprehension, in that, if I may paraphrase their argument, they suggested that we were altering the whole structure of the Town and Country Planning Act by bringing in a new right of appeal under Section 60, and that as we were doing that under Section 60, it was appropriate to do it under Section 70 as well.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not want to become unduly involved in this. I had not understood from the opening speech that the noble Lord in question was under that misapprehension. I am sure the Attorney-General will agree with me that that would be extremely unlikely in his case. The position surely is this: if it is right that this appeal should be incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act the procedural answer is not, in my submission, a convincing answer against so doing. Of course, if the effect of this Bill was—which it is not—to create a right of appeal under Section 60, the argument from these benches would be by that much stronger, but, of course, it is not necessary, in order to substantiate the point which we on these benches wish to put forward, that that should have been the case.
    The point is surely, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, that if the Section 60 and Section 70 cases are reasonably close, the fact that there is and always has been an appeal in the Section 60 cases makes it logical and desirable that there should be an appeal in the Section 70 cases. The fact that this tribunal is now to come into existence makes it the obvious tribunal equipped to hear such cases. I do not think that the argument on that score goes further than that. The main question as to the merits, whether or not there should be an appeal from the determination of development charge, goes right to the root of the question as to the way in which these development charges are to be collected and for what purpose.
    The issue is really this: is the collection of development charge to be in all respects governed by the procedure best calculated to ensure the social purpose of a development charge—that is, that betterment by way of development value accrues to the State—or is it to be governed by unregulated bargaining between the parties on a sort of catch-as-catch-can basis? If it is to be the former, it can only be satisfactorily done if the appeal procedure is given. The absence of an appeal has never really been argued on its merits except on the basis that the collection of development charge should be on the commercial basis, or what has

    1301
    been called this afternoon the haggling basis. That was made quite clear by the Minister of Town and Country Planning when this Measure was originally discussed, and that point of view has again been put more recently in another place. It is quite true that the Attorney-General refrained from putting it this afternoon, but he refrained, I think, only because he preferred not to deal specifically with the merits.
    5.15 p.m.
    I am sure that this House will agree that the commercial approach is not the right approach to the collection of development charges. As has been pointed out, if that is the right basis the collection of development charge simply becomes a contest between the Central Land Board and the would-be developer. It becomes a contest between monopoly on the one side and the intending developer on the other, the only weapon of the intending developer being that he can jettison his development if he does not care to accept the development charge. That is not a satisfactory situation. It is obviously an inequitable situation so far as the intending developer is concerned, because any commercial bargain in which one side has monopoly rights is obviously inequitable for the other side.
    Quite apart from that, in my view it is undesirable from the point of view of the community as a whole; I think hon. Members will appreciate that the sort of development which would not be persevered with under such conditions may in many cases be the development that is socially most desirable, because the development which is socially most desirable is not necessarily the development that is economically most profitable. It is in that sort of development that the additional amount on the development charge is most likely to act as an absolute deterrent. If hon. Members really want to see development charges as an instrument of social progress, I think they must agree that the commercial or haggling method is wholly undesirable. If the development charge is to serve a social purpose there must be a just assessment of it in accordance with principles of law.
    The only recognised method of resolving disputes between parties within the framework of the law is an appeal either to the judiciary or to a quasi-judicial tribunal. I suggested to the hon. Member
    1302
    for Edge Hill that there is in fact, a close parallel between this and the question of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. I believe the parallel to be very close indeed. In the case of the compulsory acquisition of land the State or the acquiring authority, whatever it may be, acquires the land and then, if the parties cannot agree on the compensation, it is referred to arbitration. Indeed it will in future be referred to the arbitration of this Tribunal.
    So far as the development charges are concerned, if reference is made to the Practice Notes issued by the Central Land Board—and I am a little surprised that they have not been cited before in the course of this Debate—it will be seen at the bottom of page 12:
    "A sale will be assumed. Value will take the form of a 'market value' and both the seller and the purchaser will be assumed to be 'willing.'"
    That is precisely the formula which has been applied over a number of years in respect of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. The market value from the point of view of the willing seller is the formula in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919. It is on that formula that it has been found necessary to have arbitrations for 30 years. It is on that formula that the Land Tribunal will consider arbitrations in the future. Therefore, I suggest that the parallel is very close indeed, and that the parallel is supported by the Practice Notes of the Central Land Board themselves.
    The Attorney-General sought to differentiate between the position under Part VI of the Act, which relates to the claims upon the central fund, and the position under Part VII of the Act which relates to the assessment of development charge. He sought to distinguish the position so as to justify the existence of an appeal in the case of the Part VI valuations, and the denial of appeal in the case of the assessment of development charge. I submit, with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the distinction which he sought to draw is not well founded.
    He spoke of the code in regard to the Part VI valuations. I do not know precisely what he had in mind in regard to a code, because there is, of course, only a statement of principles on which such valuations are to be made, as there

    1303
    is a statement of principles in regard to valuations in respect of determination of development charges. The development charge, as the House is aware, is arrived at by subtracting the refusal value from the consent value. It is of course true that the refusal value under Part VII is not defined in the same words as the restricted value under Part VI. Nevertheless, these are nice distinctions which it, my submission can be pushed a good deal too far, and have been pushed a good deal too far by implication by the right hon. and learned Gentleman today.
    I need hardly say that I do not rely wholly on my own authority. Once again I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Practice Notes of the Central Land Board. At paragraph 52, the Central Land Board say this:
    "The Board are, however, responsible in the first instance for determining Restricted Values for the purposes of claims on the £300 million, and feel that there is much to be said in favour of attaining as far as possible a common basis of valuation for Restricted Values for claims for loss of development value (Part VI) and for Refusal Values development charge (Part VII)."
    That is what they say—a common basis of valuation as between Parts VI and VII; whereas the whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case is based on a distinction between these two forms of valuation. They go on:
    "They are directed in Statutory Instrument 1189 to adopt 'normal processes of valuation,' and they propose therefore to adopt for Refusal Value of development charges the same main formula as is provided for Restricted Values for claims under Part VI."
    When the Central Land Board go on to refer to the consent value, it is of course quite right to say that they point out that there is no definition of the phrase "with the benefit of planning permission" in this Act or in any other. Having said that, they go on to say:
    "Parliament has instructed the Board to determine the additional value measured by normal processes of valuation of the land due to planning permission for a particular development. The word is 'processes' in the plural."
    Having said that, they go on to define the five matters which are the basis of calculation in regard to a consent value. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no code under Part VII whereas there is an elaborate code under Part VI, which is not a distinction that
    1304
    can properly be maintained in practice. The Central Land Board emphasise in their Practice Notes that regard must be had to "processes of valuation." I too stress it is in the plural. That fact of itself is, of course, a very weighty consideration in regard to the question of the necessity of an appeal from a decision of the Central Land Board. There is no one process of valuation; there is no exact science of valuation at all. No surveyor or expert valuer would pretend for one moment that there is. Valuation is perhaps more of an art than a science. It is based to some extent on hypotheses, and the normal method of valuations is to check one form of valuation in respect of the same property by applying other sorts of valuations.
    The only effective method in my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of other parties interested in these matters, to arrive at an appropriate valuation, if there is a difference between parties, is that the valuations are both put in evidence and that cross-examination and so on are allowed in regard to them. That is the normal method which has worked very well over a large number of years and is considered indispensable in other analogous matters. It is quite incomprehensible why that method should not be the correct method to apply in the interest of the parties in regard to determination of development charges.
    I think that the case for an appeal from development charges is very well made out on its merits. It may be there is considerable force in the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not the best way in which to introduce a major addition to the Town and Country Planning Act. That is as it may be, and I concede that no doubt he is correct in that. But he must, I think, concede that the Town and Country Planning Act was formulated as it was because there was then a different contemplation of what was to be the process of determination of development charges. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in differing from the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) in his suggestion that the fact that planning considerations may not now be taken into account is a reason for not having an appeal. On the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak has pointed out, the fact that this is now simply a question of

    1305
    valuation within the framework of the law makes it exactly analogous to other cases in which appeals for arbitration can be heard. Since matters of policy and administration are mixed up, it is much more difficult for a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal to consider a matter of appeal.
    We are entitled to assume that it may well have been for that reason that the House did not think it necessary to insert the provision for appeal when the Measure originally went through. It was only when the whole process of determination of development charges was changed by the publication of the Development Charge Regulations—when the Government had second thoughts and altered the principle—that the case for appeal to a quasi-judicial tribunal became cast-iron. Although this may not be the best method of introducing it, it is a justifiable method in view of the complete change of front brought about by these second thoughts on the part of the Government.
    Finally, may I echo what has been said before on both sides? There is dissatisfaction in some individual cases in regard to the way in which determination of development charges works, and in particular there is dissatisfaction about the absence of a right of appeal. The absence of right of appeal is never popular in this country. In any democratic community it is necessary that institutions be operated on a basis of goodwill, and in a British democracy it is particularly necessary that they be worked with the knowledge that there is fair play for all. People have not at present got that impression in regard to development charges because of the absence of a right of appeal. The administration development charges, and with it the public attitude towards the business of town and country planning, can be sensibly improved by the provision of the right of appeal. From it will come increased confidence on the part of the public as a whole that this matter is being operated on traditional principles of equity and fair play.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. McGhee: I hope that the Government will not accept the Lords Amendment. To follow for a moment what has been said by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), I am rather
    1306
    surprised to hear him state that socially desirable development may not be the most profitable.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It may not always be.
    Mr. McGhee: Yes, it may not always be. I thought that it was one of the cardinal doctrines of the Tory Party that the most profitable development was always the most socially desirable. I am also very surprised to see that they are shying away from the doctrine of haggling in the market. I thought that was another cardinal principle in which the Tory Party believed.
    The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) gave one or two cases of hardship, one at an auction and one at a private sale of land. What he meant to say was that, through the stupidity of the people who bought the land, a private owner had already collected the development charge which should have gone to the landlord. No form of tribunal would have saved those people in that case. Therefore, the solution which we are asked to apply to these hard cases would be no solution at all. Unfortunately for those poor people, the money has gone and under this Act they will have to pay the development charge if they want to develop. If the Central Land Board or a tribunal of any kind were to forgo that development, they would be making the Act, so far as we are concerned, entirely useless.
    There is no discretion on the part of district valuers if the regulation is properly carried out. It is their duty to collect the full difference between the present use value and the market value. The difficulty they are in now is that there is no comprehensive valuation of the whole country by which they can compare and judge valuations. They are doing it higgledy-piggledy, applying their minds to a little piece of land here and a little piece of land there, without having any means of making a proper comparison.
    There is not much hardship yet, at any rate—I cannot resist mentioning this; I am sorry to see that no representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is here—because the great Act which was going to collect £300 million in five years has at the moment, collected

    1307
    less than £750,000. Therefore, there cannot be very much hardship in the collection of development charge. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is not much development either."] That may be so, but not much hardship is being imposed on the people who are supposed to pay these heavy charges. I know the case of certain people who had the development charge levied against them by the Central Land Board; they actually handed the licences back to the city council because they could not afford to go on with the development. That is a hardship, but it is not the type of hardship about which we have heard this afternoon, except from the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself.
    If there is to be a tribunal in connection with these cases, I suggest that this is not the proper tribunal. This is a form of special taxation, and the appeal ought to be to the Inland Revenue Commissioners if one wants an appeal of any kind. The truth of the matter is that the Government are resisting the Amendment simply because as the law now stands on development charge, compensation and betterment, they would get so many appeals that a scheme would break down altogether. The real trouble with the sections in the principal Act is that the Government should never have embarked upon this scheme until they really had a complete and comprehensive valuation of all the land in the country. If they had done that first, this scheme might have worked. I am one of those who believe that if they had done that and if the people of the country had understood the real market value of the land, they would have gone in, not for this method of dealing with the land question, but for the method of collecting these social values for the community either by way of rates or taxation.
    Mr. Charles Williams: The speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee) interested me. It seemed to have a very nice old-fashioned ring about it. It reminded me immensely of the speeches made round about 1910. I shall not now follow his argument any further, although I might make a slight reference to it in a few minutes.
    I listened to the speech of the Attorney-General, as I always listen to him, with very great interest. There was actually
    1308
    one part of that speech with which I agreed and there was one part of it in which he was accurate. There is no doubt that there is one weakness about this Amendment, and that is that the new Clause ought to have been fully and properly applied to Scotland. The Attorney-General convinced me of that entirely. The Attorney-General also said certain things about the inclusion of the Clause in another place. He said that apparently in another place there was complete misapprehension as to what this really meant. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and without in any way depreciating his knowledge, I understand that there are in another place a number of very distinguished lawyers whom I was accustomed in the past to hear in the House of Commons. Also, I have been informed by a very large number of Ministers during the last four years that the other place has a perfectly marvellous capacity for improving things.
    When we take those two things together—first, that those in another place are very highly skilled and, second, that they include very highly skilled lawyers—I hardly think that there is very great strength in the argument of the Attorney-General, whose experience in making laws can only be quite small compared with that of many of the great lawyers in another place. The House would be extremely ill-advised to turn down an Amendment simply on the grounds that the other place did not fully understand the Clause. I hope that in saying those things I have not in any way depreciated the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have, at any rate, done him one good turn by showing that Scotland certainly should not have been omitted, and I hope that Scotsmen will take note of that.
    I should like to refer now to the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I have had a considerable number of cases—I do not say in writing—about people who have, or might have had to pay development charges. I say "might have" because in one or two cases eventually they have not had to do so. I am not quoting that as a matter of hardship, for that is the law and people have to pay those charges; but there is at present a state of complete and utter muddle and con-

    1309
    fusion. There is a very great deal of ill-feeling on this matter, and the main reason why the new Clause must be supported is that the whole feeling in the country is that the Tribunal is an arbitrary body and that in ordinary common justice there should be some method of appeal. That provision should have been made throughout the principal Act and must be made here also.
    The reason why the Government, throughout the whole of the present Parliament, always resist any form of appeal does not require much explanation. It is clear that the present Ministry of Town and Country Planning are completely incapable of dealing with these matters; they have been overworked and have lost control almost entirely of the machine of town and country planning. Only the other day illustrations of this came before the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That question surely does not arise out of this Amendment.
    Mr. Williams: I will not pursue that illustration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, simple though it may have been, of the delays which are occurring. I was merely instancing those delays as a reason why people should be given the right of an appeal in defence of their own property; and the fact that a Department is overworked makes that all the more necessary. I will not develop that illustration any further, however, because everyone is fully aware of it and knows who are the culprits. I did not intend in any way to transgress the Rules of Order by strengthening my submission that the right of appeal should be allowed.
    A further reason in support of my contention—it will not, of course, appeal to the Government—is that under the present charges they have built up an absolute monopoly as far as the development of land is concerned. They have built up the largest and most complete monopoly ever known in this country. There are, of course, other monopolies, although none of them is owned by hon. Members on this side; but the Government have built up this monopoly and, as a result, have under their power all sorts of people and all kinds of development. By imposing this charge they are holding up development, as is shown not only by my own experience but in many
    1310
    other areas. The problem could easily be overcome by the provision of some sort of appeal. The same thing happened earlier—I am reminded of it by the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee)—when the very people who introduced things of this kind had to repeal them.
    Mr. McGee: Not the same people.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Williams: I have no doubt whatever that the Clause ought to be inserted. It may go against some of the principles of the earlier Act, but that does not really matter. That earlier Measure is so bad and hopeless that we should, at least, make it a little better.
    I hope that the House will divide on the Amendment, because it is obvious that it is the deliberate intention of the Government—which explains their objections to the Amendment—to fight at every turn the right of any kind of appeal. They are fighting and endeavouring to set up a monopoly. When they begin monopolies they at once begin Socialism, and the only thing that emerges is complete monopoly with no possible source of appeal. It is precisely that state which the Government, by their own Socialist theories, are bringing about.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I agree with the view which must, I think, be held generally in the House that in dealing with this Amendment of the Lords we are dealing with a very difficult topic. I am a little hampered—as, indeed, was the right hon. and learned Attorney-General—by the Rules which prohibit our quoting what was said in the House of Lords on this matter. Since I am supporting the Lords Amendment that there should be an appeal from the Central Land Board, I should like to make clear at the outset what is, I believe, the view of all hon. Members who have spoken and of the House generally, that that does not imply any sort of attack on the Central Land Board or its distinguished Chairman, who, in my opinion, is performing a public duty with great ability. I want to make it quite clear that in supporting this right of appeal from them I am not in any way attacking the Central Land Board.
    The speech of the Attorney-General was divided between matters of form and

    1311
    procedure on the one hand, and some allusion to objections of substance on the other. So far as procedure is concerned, I at once agree with him that this Amendment involves an amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in that. If it were necessarily wrong in any Measure which dealt with procedure to introduce any substantive amendment of the law, then, of course, he would possess a good point. I do not think, however, that he would himself put it as high as that. If this Amendment is, in fact, an improvement in substance, the fact that it is made in what is, in the main, a procedural Bill is not, I think, a sufficient objection.
    On the question of substance, I am bound to say that I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his view that the House of Lords acted under any mistake of fact. In saying that I am not, of course in any way impugning the good faith of the Attorney-General in his description of the impression made upon him by the speeches in another place. Indeed, I agree that there are quotations, if we were allowed to make them, that would support him in thinking that one, at any rate, of their Lordships was under a slight misapprehension concerning Section 60. But I certainly believe that those who framed the Amendment we are now considering were acting under no mistake of fact whatsoever. That is borne out by the very different words in the new Clause we are now considering from the words in the Bill that deal with Section 60 of the 1947 Act. Those who framed the new Clause were quite clear on what had been done under Section 60 and on what they were doing in regard to Section 70. On the question of substance, it is interesting to note that the view of the Attorney-General was in direct conflict with the view of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) who, paradoxically, at the end of his speech said he was supporting the Attorney-General. Anyone who watched the expression of the Attorney-General must have thought, as I did, that he was recollecting a celebrated line of Virgil:
    non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis.
    The argument of the Attorney-General was that the Central Land Board under
    1312
    Section 70 had so much discretion that appeal from it would be useless. In fact if an appeal went to the Tribunal, as we suggest, the Tribunal would not be able to upset any decision at all because they could not say that, in the words of the regulation, a certain amount did not represent the additional value,
    "to the satisfaction of the Board"
    and so on. The hon. Member for Edge Hill, on the other hand, thinks exactly the opposite. He thinks that the Board have no discretion at all. If the hon. Member is right and there is very little discretion, it follows directly that there is great possibility of error. That is generally thought to be a good reason for providing an appeal. I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on the wording of the regulations, but, I would refer him to the exact form of the proposed new Clause, the exact words of which are:
    "Any person aggrieved by the determination of a development charge by the Central Land Board under section seventy of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, may … appeal.…"
    and then the Lands Tribunal
    "shall make such determination as it may think fit.…"
    I should have thought, notwithstanding the words in the existing regulations, that the process of appeal would not be wholly futile and that the appeal tribunal would not be bound to uphold the determination of the Board. I take the view that it would only be likely to upset the determination in cases of obvious error. It would very much increase the confidence of the public if they knew there was an appeal in cases of obvious error. A greater sense of justice would be in the interests of town and country planning. All who have any experience of town and country planning know that nothing so much hinders the possibility of good planning as a widespread sense of injustice at the process. I believe that the actual number of decisions which would be called in question if this appeal were allowed would be few, and the reputation of the Central Land Board would be increased rather than diminished.
    It would be out of Order to discuss what was very germane to the regulations and was the subject of an important Debate on 26th May, 1948, which those interested will no doubt look at. Those regulations are, of course, alterable,

    1313
    should the Government decide at any time to alter them.
    It is quite clear, as was pointed out at that time and again this afternoon, that those regulations were certainly not the regulations contemplated by those who drafted the 1947 Act at the time that Act went through this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned the Lords as acting under a mistake of fact, but it is much truer that this House acted under a mistake of fact. While fully admitting that this is an amendment of the 1947 Act, in a sense in which what is being done in regard to Section 60 is not, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General did not consider the merits. Incidentally, on the merits it is impossible to reconcile the view of the Attorney-General that by reason of the words of the regulations, and the wide discretion they give, any appeal would be futile, with the very different grounds on which the Amendment was turned down by the Lord Chancellor. I am not at liberty to quote in detail, but the Lord Chancellor certainly did not think the effect of this Amendment, if embodied in the Bill, would be to create a futility. I hope the Government will reconsider their hostility to this Amendment. If carried, it would increase the public sense of the justice of the working of the Central Land Board, and thus aid the cause of town and country planning.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had considerable discussion on this Amendment and, after all that has been said by my hon. Friends, it should be clear to the Attorney-General and hon. Members opposite that the case, for this Amendment on its merits, is very strong. Indeed, the case presented by us from this side of the House has not received any answer at all. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee), after revealing his lamentable ignorance of what the Conservative Party stand for, rather took the line that while there may be some land tribunal, it should not be this one, but that the matter should go to special commissioners. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), while voicing support for the Attorney-General, did not add any weight to the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned
    1314
    Gentleman was very wise in not putting his main argument against this Amendment on the grounds of merit. I think he would find it extremely difficult to do so. He put the main ground for resistance on objection to the inclusion in what is a procedural Bill of a change in the substantive law. I feel sure he felt that objection would bear particular weight with me, having regard to threatened action in respect of another Bill dealing with procedural changes, which are very largely agreed.
    While I sympathise with him to this degree, that it is always a little upsetting, as it must be for the bird which has a nest when the cuckoo comes along and lays an egg in that nest, at the same time there are cases—and I think this is one—where great weight should be placed on the merits. The strength of the case is such as to outweigh the advantage, if it be an advantage, of adhering solely to procedural law in a procedural Bill. In view of his argument that there was no appeal under Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, whereas there was an appeal under Section 60, I would remind him, as I reminded him in the course of our Second Reading Debate on this Bill, of the reason for that. As I understand it, it was that under Section 70, in assessing development value, questions of policy should be taken into account; it was not to be an assessment of 100 per cent. of the development value all over the country; policy was to operate so as to deflect development into different parts of the country. That was a logical argument, as that Measure then stood, for giving a right of appeal only under Section 60 in regard to the claims against the £300 million fund.
    6.0 p.m.
    That argument was completely destroyed when the regulations were made dealing with the assessment of development charge. It was then said—I remind the Attorney-General of this because he may perhaps attach great weight to the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was the Member of the Government responsible for introducing these regulations, which were to be binding upon England and Wales—by the Secretary of State for Scotland:
    "Therefore in framing these regulations we have laid down that a development charge will be 100 per cent. of the increased value and

    1315
    that that shall be in nearly all cases an invariable fixed basis on which the charge shall be made."
    That was the intention of those regulaations. That statement does not really accord with the Attorney-General's statement today that those regulations leave the Central Land Board with very wide discretion as to the amount to be levied.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland was supported upon that point by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the course of the same Debate, when he admitted that he had had to abandon what he had contemplated in the Act because it had been found to be unworkable. He said:
    "In the course of the passage of the Bill it was contemplated that in some cases the charge might be less than 100 per cent. whereas in these regulations no such provision is made except in paragraph 3, and I agree with those Members opposite who have stated that the number of cases to which paragraph 3 will apply will be very small indeed."
    A little later, dealing with paragraph 3, he said:
    "Even that does not necessarily permit of their making a charge of less than 100 per cent.… In other words, the flexibility which I had formerly thought the Central Land Board should be able to exercise, will arise in the process of valuation rather than in the percentage which they will be charging."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 261 and 302–3.]
    I scarcely think that those statements by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, supporting the Secretary of State for Scotland, tally with and support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument against giving this right of appeal on the ground that these regulations leave the Central Land Board very wide discretion as to the amount to be levied. There is to be flexibility in valuation but not in the assessment, and each case is, if possible, to be assessed at 100 per cent.
    When this point was raised on the Second Reading of this Bill—I think I raised it—the line which the right hon. and learned Gentleman took in opposition to this point was somewhat different from that which he has taken today. One argument which he then advanced was that if we gave a right of appeal in regard to Section 70 it would be a statutory right whereas the 100 per cent. of assessment of development charge is in regulations, which may be altered. I suggest
    1316
    to him that as the Minister of Town and Country Planning has said that the scheme which he originally proposed of variable development charges on the grounds of policy had been found to be unworkable, there is no real prospect of the development charge regulations being materially altered.
    We have been told this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that they in the Ministry have really received no complaints as to the arbitrary and often punitive nature of the assessments of development charge which have been made by the Central Land Board.
    Mr. King: I did not say that there had been no complaints. That is an exaggeration of what I said.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps I was a little inaccurate, but the hon. Member said that very few complaints indeed had been received, or words to that effect. I am astonished that that should be so. I hope that wide publicity will be given to the statement that the Ministry is receiving very few complaints. I am sure that plenty of people in this country will be only too willing to send complaints to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning if they think that the sending of them will serve any useful purpose. A great many of us are getting complaints. I received one two days ago from someone in my part of the country who, after a valuation by a valuer of a plot of land, bought it for a sum slightly in excess of £200, intending to build a house for his own occupation—not one for sale or anything of that kind. He finds himself assessed to pay more than £200 in development charge upon that plot of land before he can build that house. It may be that that is the right sum; I do not know, nor, I suggest, does anyone in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
    It is only common fairness and justice that a man who has an assessment like that made upon him as being the difference between the existing use value and the value with development permission should, if he does not think that that is the right assessment, and does not think it has been correctly determined, have a right of appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal such as this will create. It is a tribunal which is designed

    1317
    to deal with questions of valuation and, I think, not only questions of rating valuations but of valuations of precisely the same character which will arise under Clause 70 with regard to the difference of existing use value and the value of the unrestricted use of that land and under Clause 60 in respect of claims upon the £300 million fund.
    It is our belief that it is only right that people who are subject to determinations which appear to them to be completely wrong, unfair and unjustifiable, should have the right to put forward their case in public before an impartial tribunal. As that is our belief, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met, on the merits, the case which we have made in support of this Amendment, we shall have to carry this matter into the Division Lobby.
    The Attorney-General: I can only speak again with the permission of the House. What strikes me most about the course of our Debate is how singularly hon. Members opposite have failed to establish a case in favour of this Amendment. It is, I venture to think, for hon. Members opposite, and not, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said, for the Government, to establish this case. The onus is not on the Government here. Parliament had ample opportunity of discussing these matters in 1947, or indeed in 1949, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just reminded me when he himself raised the matter on this very Bill. It is for hon. Members opposite to take upon themselves and to discharge the onus of showing that Parliament was wrong in the decision it came to in 1947, and in 1949, that it was inappropriate, at all events in this Bill, to give a right of appeal under Section 70.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: In 1947 the circumstances were entirely different.
    The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I will deal with that point at once. It is a point made not only by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but also by the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison)—I am always a bit nervous about the name of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The learned Attorney-General can always say "Tewkesbury" if he is nervous.
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Lands Tribunal was not in existence in 1947, and that therefore the circumstances, when this matter was discussed by Parliament on the Town and Country Planning Bill, were different. Of course it is true that the Lands Tribunal was not then in existence, but that, at all events, was no reason for not providing the right of appeal under Section 70 to some appropriate tribunal. Official arbitrators were in existence at that time. It was contemplated by Section 60 that they would be the appropriate tribunal for appeals in Section 60 cases, and if the House had thought it appropriate that there should be appeals under Section 70 they were at that time the appropriate tribunal for such appeals.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: We moved an Amendment which was rejected.
    The Attorney-General: Quite so. The whole question was discussed then, and it was not the absence of the Lands Tribunal which led to the rejection of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. It was that this House thought, rightly or wrongly on the merits, that it was not appropriate to have such appeals under Section 70, but it was appropriate to have such appeals under Section 60.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the reason put forward by the Government then was that the development charge would be affected on questions of policy and would be variable having regard to policy?
    The Attorney-General: I have no doubt that that may have influenced the view of some hon. Members in the conclusion they came to on this matter. But it was not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared at one time to suggest, that there was not at that time an appropriate appellant tribunal to deal with any such appeal, if such appeal there ought to have been.
    I do not wish to pursue this matter. It is not perhaps of very great importance. But I do not think that hon. Members opposite have really sought to contest the fact, strange as it is—and I have the highest respect for Debates in another place—that the other place was under a complete misapprehension over this Bill. If the hon. Member for Hertford will look

    1319
    at the speech of the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment he will find—I must not quote the noble and learned Lord, I can only refer by paraphrase to what he said—that the noble and learned Lord did suggest to the House that the jurisdiction of the Central Land Board under Section 60 was being transferred to this new Lands Tribunal. That appears in somewhat similar language, I think the hon. Member will find, in column 345, in the last paragraph of that column. It is quite clear that both the noble and learned Lord and the acting Leader of the Opposition were putting the matter in that way. They were saying that here was a Bill which was going to create a right of appeal where none existed before under Section 60 in regard to development valuation, so why then not create a similar right of appeal under Section 70 in regard also to development valuations? There is no doubt about that, and that that misapprehension existed. I hope that it does not exist in this House and that we can deal with the matter quite independently of any such mistake.
    6.15 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put to me, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman had put earlier, the point about the view, taken during the passage of the Town and County Planning Bill in 1947, as to the probability that development values under Section 70 might be affected by questions of policy. It is perfectly true, and I concede at once, that it was then said that there ought to be elasticity in regard to the quantum of the development charge; and that in appropriate circumstances it might be right—as, for instance, by charging a lower amount, less than the actual development value—to promote development by adjustments in the actual development charge that was levied in particular cases. It is also true, and I can concede it at once, that under the existing regulations the charge is in general to be levied at 100 per cent. and therefore in general it is not now affected by planning considerations or questions of policy of that kind.
    But the Act does in fact provide elastiticity, and as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out, these regulations can be amended. I do not
    1320
    suggest that they are going to be; I have no idea; but it may be that in the working of the Act, as time goes on, it will be found desirable to amend them in order to enable the charge to be effected in accordance with the desirability of development. Whatever may have been said about the matter by the Secretary of State for Scotland, it is quite clear that the regulations do themselves, in terms, provide that in a number of cases discretion is to be left to the Central Land Board. If hon. Members look at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the regulations, they will find that that is so. Moreover, in paragraph 4 it is stated in terms:
    "Where in the special case of any land of a class referred to in Part VIII of the Act … the application of the foregoing principles would, in the opinion of the Board, be inappropriate, the Board shall apply the governing principle subject to such modification as is in their opinion appropriate to that special case."
    That gives the Board an absolute discretion subject to that governing principle in the consideration of a number of cases involved in Part VIII—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does not the Attorney-General agree that the governing principle very considerably limits the discretion?
    The Attorney-General: Certainly, Sir. I would not attempt for a moment to suggest that it did not. But in spite of the governing principle these regulations themselves clearly contemplate that in particular cases a considerable discretion is left in the Board:
    "… the Board shall apply the governing principle subject to such modification as in their opinion is appropriate to that special case."
    That is, in those special cases—and I agree they are a limited class of case—a provision which can clearly leave the Board with considerable discretion.
    Mr. Molson: Does not that seem extraordinary in that, in the case which my right hon. Friend quoted, about Mr. Crook the chemist and sub-postmaster, when the matter was taken up about the desirability of moving the post office and was supported by the Postmaster-General, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve said that there was no provision whereby Mr. Crook could be granted exception from payment, or at any rate, where there could have been a reduction of the development charge?
    The Attorney-General: I dare say that in that case he was asked to deal with the question of exemption, and that is the question to which the reply was directed. It may well be that the particular case was not one in which the Central Land Board had discretion. I am not saying that they have discretion in every case. It is, in fact, only in a limited number of cases compared with the total that they have a discretion. But it is quite clear, under the regulations as at present drafted, that that discretion is vested in the Central Land Board in what is a not inconsiderable number of cases.
    The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members referred to certain particular cases. I am not quite sure, but I think that the total number referred to in the whole course of our Debate was five particular cases, in which it was suggested that some sort of injustice had been done. The right hon. Gentleman referred in particular to one case with which, fortunately, I am able to deal, because it was referred to in another place. I wish that it were possible under our Rules of Order for me to deal with all the other cases—I think there were only four—referred to in another place, because I believe that I could give a convincing answer in regard to them. I cannot, of course, attempt to give an answer on the cases raised here without notice, but I can at least deal with one case. It concerned a club called the Union Club. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been two determinations of development value, that one of them must have been wrong, and that therefore there should have been a right of appeal. That argument was, if I may respectfully say so, wholly misconceived.
    What happened was that the district valuer was asked on the telephone for a rough informal assessment of the charge which would be payable if the club bought some premises in Grosvenor Square and adapted them for use as a club. The district valuer gave a figure of £60,000 over the telephone, without having the opportunity of making any formal valuation, but having regard to the purchase price the club told him they were proposing to pay. They were contemplating paying a sum of £100,000, which appeared to be an excessive amount. Relying on those figures given
    1322
    on the telephone, and being asked to give a rough informal assessment, the district valuer gave that figure. After that, in the ordinary course, the Union Club had to send in the necessary particulars and details of the premises they proposed to acquire. On making a proper valuation, with the full information before him, the district valuer reduced the figure to £35,000. On learning that the probable development charge that would be payable by them was £35,000—not £60,000 as at first thought—the club were able to indicate to the proposed vendors that they were not willing to pay a price anywhere near the £100,000 which they had at first been asked to pay.
    The right hon. Gentleman seemed to draw from the circumstances of that case the curious conclusion that the district valuers or the Central Land Board never heard anyone's case, but decided the matter in an arbitrary way behind closed doors. The true moral of that case, and indeed of the other cases mentioned in another place, is that district valuers are very ready to revise the rough figures which they may give in the first instance, and are always ready to negotiate these matters with the applicants who are seeking to get development charges assessed.
    I am sorry that I cannot deal equally with the other cases raised by hon. Members. Nor do I propose to deal now, at all events at any length, with the general merits of this matter. The position is that the Central Land Board is the owner, the landlord of the land, and like other owners and other landlords—and in some areas landowners have a complete monopoly of the available land—they fix the amount of the development charge in negotiation with the tenant or applicant who comes to them. The general experience in the working of this section has been that all over the country the charges have been agreed without any difficulty, and in the most amicable way. There are, of course—and this I cannot help thinking was the kind of case the hon. and learned Member for Daventry had in mind—many people, I dare say most landowners, who object to having to pay a development charge at all, who object to the policy of the Act in levying these charges, and who would rather not have to pay anything. But subject to that, and accepting the policy of the Act, that

    1323
    development charges have to be paid, the experience has been that very rarely has there been any difficulty or disagreement as to the actual amount of the charge, and there really is not the slightest justification for the sweeping generalisations which have been made, both here and in another place, that the Act was working unsatisfactorily or unjustly in regard to the actual assessment of charges. Indeed, hon. Members opposite, perhaps not for the first time, seek to have it both ways. If the charge is too high they say that is wrong, and if on further negotiation the district valuer reduces the charge they say that is wrong, too.
    Mr. Molson: Both assessments may be wrong.
    The Attorney-General: It is possible that both assessments may be right, but in the end the general experience is that—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: They cannot both be right.
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I did not follow the point the hon. Gentleman was making. At all events, in the vast majority of cases the eventual assessments are agreed amicably with the owners and tenants of the land concerned, and it is quite untrue to suggest, as did the hon. Member for The High Peak, that there have been widespread complaints about this matter. The Ministry, as we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, have had comparatively few complaints. I personally—and I mention this because other hon. Members have mentioned complaints raised at meetings—either in my official capacity or in going about the country addressing meetings, have never once had a complaint that the assessment charges have been unjustly or inequitably assessed.
    Colonel Dower: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would at any rate admit that the uncertainty has caused a great deal of projected work not to be proceeded with. I could myself give him several instances of that.
    The Attorney-General: There need be no uncertainty about the matter. It is possible to obtain an assessment of a development charge quite quickly and quite certainly. I will say something
    1324
    about that in a moment. When the uncertainty is resolved and the development charge is assessed it may in particular cases discourage development. I will say something about that in a moment; I am not concealing that. But there is no reason for any uncertainty to exist. Indeed, if we provided a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal a point of law might be taken right on to the House of Lords, and there would certainly be uncertainty and delay in fixing a development charge in particular cases. But there is no reason for any delay or uncertainty about the matter now.
    The hon. Member for The High Peak said that no general instructions had been given to the district valuers—I think I am correct in attributing this point to him—but that is quite incorrect. The Central Land Board has published, as the hon. Member for Hertford pointed out, a very detailed and almost voluminous body of practice notes, setting out all sorts of principles and rules upon which the district valuers and the Central Land Board will act. I am told that these have been of very great assistance to the surveyors' profession and to the valuers in arriving at agreed valuations. The district valuers have been instructed, first, that they should notify applicants as quickly as they can of the provisional valuation, and that they should offer at all stages to discuss the matter with applicants and try to arrive at an agreed valuation in an amicable way.
    6.30 p.m.
    In the vast majority of cases, that has in fact been done, and to bring up in this House five, and in the other House four, particular cases, and to argue from those particular cases, brought up without notice, that the scheme is working inequitably, is, I venture to think, a method which will not commend itself to the House. If indeed hon. Members opposite are getting numerous complaints about these methods, I hope they will pass them on to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which I am sure will be interested to consider them, and which, no doubt, if it feels that this scheme is working unsatisfactorily and giving rise to inequitable results, will consider the question of a possible appeal on its merits and in the light of such evidence as is made available to it.
    The hon. Member for Hertford took the point that it was inequitable that the

    1325
    assessment of the charge should be left to negotiations between the tenant and the landlord, who had a monopoly, and it is very gratifying to hear the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite coming out in clear opposition to monopolies in these matters. But this particular monopoly, we ought perhaps to remember, is a public one conducted in the public interest, and subject to the control of the Minister and to the control of Parliament.
    Now I come to the point raised by the hon. Member in regard to the possibly discouraging effect on development of charges which were too high. If, in fact, it turned out that development values were being charged at so high a rate that they were discouraging development, I would have thought that that would be the very thing, far more than any right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal or any other body, which would in itself result in the charges coming down, because of course the Central Land Board, unlike the Lands Tribunal, is vested with important responsibilities under the Act, and is subject to the control of the Minister and eventually to the control of this House. If indeed it did appear that the policy pursued by the Board in relation to development charges was discouraging development, that more than anything else would lead to the modification of the policy.
    Mr. H. Strauss: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question? He has made the rather important statement that the Central Land Board is subject to the control of the Minister. Which provision has he in mind?
    The Attorney-General: I would not pledge myself to the particular Section, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman turns it up I think he will find that it is one of the early sections and that it does, in terms, provide that the Central Land Board is subject to directions of a general character by the Minister. I think that is so.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Section 2 or 3.
    The Attorney-General: I am much obliged. I am told that it is either Section 2 or 3, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at either of those Sections, he will find that they provide
    1326
    something to that effect. In fact, I am informed that it is Section 3 (1), which states:
    "(1) The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
    Then, there is the power of the Minister to make regulations in regard to the development charge, and if he find that high development charges under the present regulations are discouraging development, I should imagine that the first thing he would do would be to alter the regulations.
    Mr. H. Strauss: May I put this question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The only point that I wish to make clear is this. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had that Section in mind, is it not the case that it does not provide the Minister with any sort of remedy if an individual development charge is wrongly assessed?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think anybody, even the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, will imagine that I have suggested anything to that effect. The Minister has general control over the Central Land Board, as Ministers have under various Acts passed by this Parliament establishing national boards.
    The hon. Member for Hertford was followed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who spoke at some little length. If he will permit me to say so, he always succeeds in compressing the maximum number of words into the minimum number of ideas, and I must be careful not to follow him in that respect.
    The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities took the point that, under the Amendment, as drafted, the Lands Tribunal could make such decisions as they thought fit, and if that is so, and it may well be so, that would of course result in a transfer to the Lands Tribunal of the discretion now vested in the Central Land Board. As I have just pointed out, the Board is vested with important responsibilities in the code established by the 1947 Act and is subject to general control by the Minister and Parliament, and the position under this Amendment must be that either appeals to the Lands Tribunal will be futile, because the Lands Tribunal will be

    1327
    unable to interfere with the discretion of the Central Land Board, or the discretion now vested in that Board and under the general control of the Minister and this House will be transferred to the Lands Tribunal, which has no responsibility to any one in the matter and is not within the system for securing the planning and development of land, as the Central Land Board is.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again, but this is rather an important point. Does he say that, if the Central Land Board made an obvious mistake which took them quite outside paragraph 2 of the regulations, under this Amendment it could not be put right?
    The Attorney-General: No, I am not saying that. I am dealing with the point of discretion, and I say that either the Lands Tribunal must exercise the discretion now vested in the Central Land Board, which is an organisation within the general code for the development and the planning of land under the 1947 Act, or it can do nothing where the Board has exercised its discretion. That is clearly the position, and, whichever the result, in my submission it is equally undesirable.
    I am not the Minister responsible for the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act, but I am the Minister responsible in this House for dealing with matters of legal procedure and machinery. I think the hon. and learned Member for Daventry will agree with me that those who desire to improve the machinery of our law are often impeded by attempts to use machinery Bills as a vehicle for altering the principles and substance of the law itself. If on the merits there ought to be an appeal in this kind of case, it will have to be provided for by amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act, and that Act will have to lay down an appropriate code on which the Central Land Board will be required to act, and departures from which can be made the subject of appeal.
    It is quite wrong to say that the position at present as between Sections 60
    1328
    and 70 is the same. For Section 60, a code is laid down by Sections 61 and 62 which attracts some of the rules—not all, but a good many—of the 1919 Act. For Section 70, there are, it is true, the practice notes, but they are administrative and can be changed at any time in the discretion of the Central Land Board. We have, on the one hand, a statutory code to which the Central Land Board must adhere; on the other hand, administrative rules are published for the information of the public which the Central Land Board use when guiding themselves in the exercise of their discretion.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what he calls the statutory code under Section 61 or Section 62 is cast in wide terms, and would he not agree, from a study of the practice notes, that though the words are different in the two cases, the Land Board has clearly come to the conclusion that the more they apply them in practice, the closer they seem to be?
    The Attorney-General: That may well be so; I am not arguing that point. What I am saying is that if we create a legal right of appeal from the Central Land Board, we must have a statutory code. It might be very similar to the administrative code set out in the practice notes, but we cannot have a workable appeal unless we have a statutory code and can go to the appellant Tribunal and say that the Central Land Board have departed in one particular or another from the code imposed upon them by statute. I ask the House to say that whatever case there might be for an appeal under Section 70 on the merits, this is not the occasion on which to provide that appeal. To pass this Bill with this Amendment would indeed bring very great grist, I venture to think, to the legal mill, but it would introduce complete muddle and confusion into the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 129.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES

    [3.35 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Ewart, R.

    Longden, F.

    Albu, A. H.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Alexander, Rt. Han. A. V.

    Farthing, W. J.

    McAdam, W.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fernyhough, E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mack, J. D.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

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

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gallacher, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gibbins, J.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Gibson, C. W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Gilzean, A.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Barstow, P. G.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Barton, C.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Battley J. R.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Benson, G.

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Berry, H.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.

    Beswick, F.

    Guy, W. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Monslow, W.

    Binns, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Morley, R.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Harrison, J.

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

    Boardman, H.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Nally, W.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Holman, P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hoy, J.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hubbard, T.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Carmichael, James

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

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Parker, J.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Cooper, G.

    Janner, B.

    Pearson, A.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Peart, T. F.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Piratin, P.

    Crawley, A.

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

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

    Daggar, G.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Daines, P.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Keenan, W.

    Price, M. Philips

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kendall, W. D.

    Proctor, W. T.

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

    King, E. M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kinley, J.

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Ranger, J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lang, G.

    Reeves, J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Rhodes, H.

    Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

    Leonard, W.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Edelman, M.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N.)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Logan, D. G.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Royle, C.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Weitzman, D.

    Scollan, T.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    West, D. G.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin' gh, E.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Sharp, Granville

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wigg, George

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

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Shurmer, P.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Tiffany, S.

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

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Timmons, J.

    Willis, E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Tolley, L.

    Wyatt, W.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Yates, V. F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Sparks, J. A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Watson, W. M.

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon, R.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.

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

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Butcher, H. W.

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

    Snadden, W. M.

    Challen, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Channon, H.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Maclay, Hon J. S.

    Teeling, William

    Crowder, Capt, John E.

    MacLeod, J.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macpherson. N. (Dumfries)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    De la Bère, R.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Touche, G. C.

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

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Drewe, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Eden, Rt. Hon A.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

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

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

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

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Nicholson, G.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gage, C.

    Odey, G. W.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

    Brigadier Mackeson and

    Grimston, R. V.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Mr. Wingfield Digby.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES

    [6.42 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Hale, Leslie

    Pryde, D. J.

    Albu, A. H.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Ranger, J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Harrison, J.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Raid, T. (Swindon)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Rhodes, H.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Holman, P.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Balfour, A.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Barstow, P. G.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

    Barton, C.

    Hoy, J.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Battley, J. R.

    Hubbard, T.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Benson, G.

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

    Royle, C.

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Sargood, R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

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

    Scollan, T.

    Binns, J.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Blyton, W. R.

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

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Janner, B.

    Sharp, Granville

    Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

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

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

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

    Shurmer, P.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Brock, D. (Halifax)

    Keenan, W.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Kenyon, C.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    King, E. M.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Skinnard, F. W.

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

    Kinley J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Carmichael, James

    Kirby, B. V.

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

    Champion, A. J.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lang, G.

    Snow, J. W.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Solley, L. J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leonard, W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Collick, P.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Collindrige, F.

    Levy, B. W.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Collins, V. J.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Cooper, G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Swingler, S.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Crawley, A.

    McAdam, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Daggar, G.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Daines, P.

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

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Tiffany, S.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Timmons, J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Diamond, J.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Tolley, L.

    Dobbie, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Donovan, T.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Viant, S. P.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Walker, G. H.

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

    Marquand, Rt Hon. H. A.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

    Mellish, R. J.

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

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Messer, F.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Ewart, R.

    Milligton, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    West, D. G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Morley, R.

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

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Follick, M.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

    Foot, M. M.

    Nally, W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Gallagher, W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Gibbins, J.

    Parkin, B. T.

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Willis, E.

    Gilzean, A.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Pearson, A.

    Wyatt, W.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Peart, T. F.

    Yates, V. F.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Piratin, P.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Popplewell, E.

    Guy, W. H.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan.

    1330

    1331

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nield, B. (Chester)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Odey, G. W.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bennett, Sir P.

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

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

    Birch, Nigel

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Pickthorn, K.

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

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Renton, D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Bullock Capt. M.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

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

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Challen, C.

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

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Channon, H.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Kendall, W. D.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Low, A. R. W.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Teeling, William

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Drayson, G. B.

    MacArdrew, Col. Sir C.

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

    Drewe, C.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Touche, G. C.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Turton, R. H.

    Eeeles, D. M.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

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

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gaga, C.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maude, J. C.

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

    Gammans, L. D.

    Medlicott, Brigadier F.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wingfield Digby.

    Clause 10.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND REPEAL.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 18, at beginning insert "Sections one to four of."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if we took, with this Amendment, the two subsequent Amendments in lines 21 and 23. These three Amendments are drafting. Their joint effect is to secure that the provisions of Clause 3, which enable points of law to be taken right up to the House of Lords if need be, and the provisions of Clause 5, regarding procedure on the withdrawal of notices to treat, shall come into operation immediately the Royal Assent is given. Hon. Members will recall that the Lands Tribunal themselves may not
    1332
    be set up at once, but there seems to be no reason why these provisions should await the establishment of the Tribunal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 60, at end, add:
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]
    Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: —Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Manningham-Buller, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Mr. Proctor and Mr. Harry Wallace: —Three to be the Quorum—[The Attorney-General.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 7, page 8, line 12; Clause 21, page 20, line 25 and Clause 22, page 21, line 36, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Attorney-General.—[The Attorney-General.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE BILL

    Clause 7.—(RIGHT TO AND NATURE OF LEGAL ADVICE.)
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) In the case of a person who has been a member of the forces at any time after the passing of this Act, the last foregoing subsection (except paragraph (b) thereof) shall apply so as to authorise the giving of advice on matters arising in the course of his service outside England and Wales, as it applies in the case of a person who is a member of the forces."
    The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) pointed out in our discussions upstairs that demobilised members of the Forces on their return to this country might, perhaps, after the lapse of some period of time—six months or nine months—find themselves in need of legal advice on some matter which had not manifested itself during their service abroad and which involved some question of the foreign law of the country in which they had been serving. This Amendment would enable the Forces' legal adviser to give legal advice to a demobilised member of the Forces in regard to matters arising under foreign law during their period of service.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We do not object to this Amendment; in fact, we think it is desirable. I should, however, like to ask one or two questions about it. When the demobilised member of His Majesty's Forces wants advice or aid in regard to the law of the country in which he has been serving, will he apply as an ordinary civilian does and be required to make a contribution or pay a fee for the advice, or will he be treated as a serving member of the
    1334
    Forces in respect of this particular advice and be able to obtain it free?
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the man would have recourse to the Forces' legal adviser. One does not know quite how that will operate. I wonder whether the Attorney-General could throw a little more light on that point. As I understood it, in Committee it was stated that the Law Society were to be responsible both for the provision of legal aid to civilians and also for the provision of legal aid to the Forces, whether in this country or abroad, and, if that be the case, I think it would be valuable if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us a little more indication of how this scheme will operate in consequence of this Amendment.
    If I may remind him, the right hon. and learned Gentleman also said on the Committee stage that he would consider extending the facilities provided for members of His Majesty's Forces to the Control Commission. He said he would think about that again. I assume he has thought about it again and I also assume, from his silence upon this matter, that he has not found it possible to widen the scope of these facilities so as to include members of the Control Commission.
    The Attorney-General: The assumption in the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is correct. We gave further consideration to the possibility of providing facilities for legal aid to members of the Control Commission, but we were unable to find any reason why they, and not other public servants serving abroad in other parts of the world, should be entitled to these special facilities. We thought, therefore, that it would be inappropriate to provide them.
    So far as the demobilised member of the Forces is concerned, he will be entitled to receive legal advice as if he were a member of the Forces, that is to say, without paying for it. He will, of course, apply as a civilian, it is true, through the Law Society and they will forward his request for information and advice to the appropriate legal officer in the country in which he was serving. I do not know whether that will happen in every case; it may be that they will have at hand in London an officer able to give

    1335
    advice, but normally I suppose the matter will have to be referred to the legal officer at the military station at which the soldier was serving.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: But under Clause 7 the advice must be limited. He must receive advice on the English law and not on the law of the place where he happens to have been.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has misread the Clause, because I am quite sure that the effect of this provision is to enable members of His Majesty's Forces to obtain advice on the law of the country, outside Great Britain, in which they have been serving.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That may be so in the view of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but I think it is perfectly clear under Clause 7 that it does not operate in that way, and I see nothing in the Amendment which amplifies that at all. The Amendment is simply in connection with some matter which has occurred whilst the person in the Services was abroad. If one looks at Clause 7, it is perfectly clear that he is precluded from receiving advice on any law other than the English law.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. Subsection (3, c) makes provision for including other countries by regulation, and this Amendment brings in a new subsection (4), which refers back specifically to that subsection.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: With respect, the regulations may be introduced to extend the operation of this Bill. We are not dealing with them. That is a matter for the future, and it could be accomplished, I think, without this Amendment. The point we are discussing is this particular Amendment, and, in my submission to the Attorney-General, the Clause would, as it stands now, even with the Amendment, preclude a man from receiving advice on any law other than English law.
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. and learned
    1336
    Friend's construction of the Bill and the Amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, members of the Forces are entitled to legal aid in special circumstances and on different conditions from civilians, but they are not entitled to such aid after their demobilisation. The Bill provides that whilst they are members of the Forces they may obtain, subject to regulations to be made under Clause 7 (3), advice on the law of the places where they have been serving as soldiers. This Amendment is intended to extend that provision to them after their demobilisation, and I think it succeeds in so doing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21.—(COST OF LEGAL AID IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) The costs of a solicitor which are payable under this section in respect of proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction may include sums for his fees and disbursements in respect of work reasonably undertaken by him in giving notice of appeal or applying for a case to be stated and in matters preliminary thereto, being work done within the ordinary time for giving the notice or making the application."
    This Amendment provides that the costs of the solicitor acting on the legal aid certificate in courts of summary jurisdiction should include the fees and disbursements reasonably undertaken by him in giving notice of an appeal or applying for a case to be stated, and in respect of matters incidental to that step towards an appeal, subject to this limitation, that what the solicitor has done has been done within the ordinary and limited time for taking those appellant steps—14 days, I think it is, for appeal to quarter sessions, and seven days for a case stated. I think this Amendment will meet the main point of the new Clause standing on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish)—[Retention of solicitor or counsel in case of conviction.]—and will enable the solicitor who has conducted the case in the court—and this is, I think, the point of my hon. Friend's proposed new Clause—to advise on an appeal. If, after notice has been given, or application has been

    1337
    made for a case to be stated, an appeal is actually prosecuted and there is a hearing, then a fresh certificate will be applied for to the committee, but the solicitor who has been authorised to conduct the proceedings in the court of summary jurisdiction itself will be entitled to take those initial steps which have to be taken in a limited time.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 22.—(COST OF LEGAL AID IN OTHER COURTS.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 21, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) Where after the commencement of this Part of this Act free legal aid is granted under section one of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930, or under section two of the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, the costs which are directed to be paid out of local funds shall be treated as including sums for any fees and disbursements of the solicitor assigned in respect of work reasonably undertaken by him in giving notice of appeal or of an application for leave to appeal, or applying for a case to be stated, and in matters preliminary thereto, being work done within the ordinary time for giving the notice or making the application for the case to be stated; and where counsel is also assigned the said sums may include the solicitor's costs in obtaining the counsel's opinion as to the appeal or application or matters connected therewith."
    This is a somewhat similar provision, to enable the solicitor who has acted for an assisted litigant on trial on indictment or on appeal to the court of quarter sessions to advise on, and to take the necessary preliminary steps with a view to, appeal either to the Court of Criminal Appeal, if the trial was on indictment, or to the High Court after appeal to quarter sessions by way of case stated. There again the time is limited, and it is right that the solicitor already acting should be entitled to continue the case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

    New Clause.—(SECRECY.)
    (1) Subject to the next following subsection no information furnished for the purposes of Part I of this Act to the Law Society, or to any committee or person on their behalf, in connection with the case of a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice shall be disclosed otherwise than—

    (a) for the purpose of facilitating the proper performance by any person or body of persons of functions under Part I of this Act; or

    (b) for the purpose of any criminal proceedings for an offence thereunder or of any report of such proceedings.

    (2) The foregoing subsection shall not prevent the disclosure of information for any purpose with the consent of the person in connection with whose case it was furnished and, where he did not furnish it himself, with that of the person or body of persons who did.
    (3) A person who, in contravention of this section, discloses any information obtained by him when employed by or acting on behalf of the Law Society shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
    (4) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be brought without the written consent of the Attorney-General.
    (5) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that information furnished to counsel or a solicitor as such by or on behalf of a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice is not information furnished to the Law Society or a person on their behalf.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This concerns secrecy as between the assisted litigant and those who may obtain information about his litigation. This was a matter which was discussed in Committee, and to which we have since given a good deal of consideration, because it presented difficulties of a professional kind, but at the same time concerned matters which were of considerable public importance. The new Clause imposes an obligation of secrecy on the Law Society, the members of the committee appointed in connection with the administration of the legal aid scheme, and upon any employees of the Law Society and of the committee who may, in the course of their employment, acquire information about a litigant's affairs; and it provides a penalty of £100 for a breach of that duty of secrecy. The new Clause does not in any way interfere with the privileged relationship which, under the ordinary rules of the legal pro-

    1339
    fession will exist between an assisted litigant and his solicitor or his counsel. If they commit any breach of the privilege in regard to these matters they will be dealt with by the ordinary professional bodies, the Inns of Court or the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society, as for a grave breach of the relationship existing between them and their client.
    However, the members of the committee of the Law Society, and the employees who are working in the administration of the scheme, stand in a somewhat different position. They do not occupy the position of solicitor or counsel to the assisted litigant, and breaches of confidence by them would consequently not be within the ordinary rules of professional etiquette as administered by either branch of the profession. On the other hand, of course, a breach of confidence by them—by members of the committee, who will get to know something about the affairs of the assisted litigant, or by employees—would be a matter of a most serious kind affecting the interest of the public. We felt, therefore, that this was a matter which ought to be in the hands of the court.
    The present new Clause does not, however, very much modify the proposal which we previously considered upstairs. The fiat of the Attorney-General will be required before any prosecution can take place, and the penalty will no longer be one in which there is an alternative of imprisonment, but a fine of a maximum of £100. I commend the new Clause to the House, pointing out, as I have done, that it has no application at all to the ordinary relationship between the assisted litigant and his solicitor or his counsel, as the case may be.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: This new Clause is, in my opinion, very much better than the Clause or the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to introduce into the Bill in Committee. As he has reminded us, the Bill made one liable to a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment or both for the divulging of information. That Amendment was also open to the construction that it applied to a solicitor and counsel acting in a professional capacity, so different obligations would
    1340
    fall upon the solicitor and counsel according to whether they were acting for an ordinary client or a client under the Legal Aid scheme. Were they acting for an ordinary client, they would not be liable to criminal prosecution for divulging any information they obtained and would be dealt with by members of their own profession.
    This new Clause makes it clear that, so far as lawyers are acting in a professional relationship, they shall not be liable to a criminal prosecution. I think that is a very desirable alteration. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is necessary to make some provision for those who are bound to become acquainted with the assisted litigant's affairs and do not stand in the usual professional relationship to that person. I myself am still inclined to the view that all that was necessary was to extend the area of professional privilege, bearing in mind that the local committees and area committees will be staffed by lawyers, and I am somewhat inclined to the view that it is not necessary to create a criminal offence at all.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone so far to meet us—and this Clause does contain the safeguard, and I think that it is a real safeguard—that there can be no prosecution without his consent. That, I think, makes it acceptable to us, and we on this side of the House do not wish to do anything to deter people from making use of this scheme. If it is thought that the possibility of a criminal prosecution will give them greater confidence that what they say will not be improperly disclosed, I agree that there is something to be said for making this a criminal offence, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred, although I myself doubt whether this Clause will ever be used, and, indeed, I hope that it will not be.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: There are two points to which I would draw attention. The first is on the question of professional privilege, and on that I heartedly agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, confirmed, of course, by what the Attorney-General has stated. Apparently, the desire is also to prevent disclosure, and that is an entirely different matter from a question of professional

    1341
    privilege. It is perfectly clear that where a party himself has supplied the information there is to be no disclosure except with his consent. What I would like the Attorney-General to make clear is this. Suppose it is not the party to the litigation who is making the disclosure of information, supposing it is not a litigant who is supplying the material; supposing his clerk or some agent, it may be his doctor, accountant, or even his wife, has given the information for the purpose of obtaining legal aid, and given it with his consent, is it to be said that this person may later disclose that information notwithstanding that the litigant himself does not give his consent?
    I should like the Attorney-General to look at that point. It may be that I am not putting the correct construction upon it. What is the position supposing the information has been disclosed by his agent, clerk, the doctor attending him, his wife or his accountant? The information is obviously something which has been given through the litigant himself, but it may in fact have been given not with his consent and with his instructions by his clerk or by some other agent. Is the clerk to be allowed to disclose without the consent of his principal, or is the agent or the wife to be able to disclose in a similar way without consent?
    7.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The wording of the Clause is that in such a case the information would have been given on behalf of the litigant by his agent, and the litigant's consent would be required.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF LEGAL AID.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out from "except," to the end of line 11, and to insert:
    "such payment as is directed by this Part of this Act to be made out of the legal aid fund."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. As worded, the Clause would have imposed an obligation on solicitors and counsel to make certain that their fees came from the legal aid fund. The new wording of this Amendment avoids
    1342
    placing that onus on them, but still makes it clear that they must not receive any payment from their client.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for recognising by this Amendment the force of the point which I raised in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "order," to insert "or agreement."
    I think it would be convenient to the House if we considered with this Amendment the Amendments in page 4, line 23; page 7, lines 30 and 31; and page 13, line 4, all of which deal with corresponding matters.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me if I do not on every occasion in introducing an Amendment say that I am indebted to him or other hon. Members for raising these points upstairs. I shall at an appropriate stage express my indebtness to all hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the great help they have given on this Bill. These Amendments are the results of points raised by one side or the other, and very often by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in Committee.
    This group of Amendments is intended to deal with the question of costs, where a case is settled instead of being fought out, and is made the subject of an order for costs. A case may sometimes be settled without any express provision having been made between the parties over the payment of costs, and, in such an event, under Clause 3 (4), the legal aid fund will have a claim on the amount, whatever it is, which is paid to the assisted litigant. Very often in settling cases it is convenient, first of all, to negotiate on damages, the defendant agreeing to pay £x, and when there has been an agreement on damages to negotiate with regard to the question of costs, the defendant agreeing to pay £y. In such a case, under this Amendment, the amount which has been specifically agreed to be paid for costs will be paid straight into the legal aid fund. That is the substance of what are, in a sense, drafting Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of all the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute."
    It might be appropriate if at the same time we discuss the Amendment in line 29. We had a good deal of discussion upstairs as to the extent to which the unsuccessful assisted litigant should be protected from the ordinary liability of having to pay the whole of the costs. It is clear that if the unsuccessful assisted litigant were left without any protection at all, the risks—litigation being as it is an extremely uncertain matter—of having to pay the whole of the costs if he failed would be a very powerful deterrent to people going to law even if they were advised that they had quite a good case. That fact has been very much impressed upon us, as I think it was impressed upon the Rushcliffe Committee in regard to this matter. On the other hand, one must consider the position of the successful and unassisted defendant or the successful and unassisted litigant, whether he be plaintiff or defendant.
    After giving the matter very careful consideration in the light of the discussion which took place upstairs, we are of the view that if the payment of the balance of costs not awarded against the assisted and unsuccessful litigant were put as an obligation upon the State, it would result in most undesirable consequences. I do not want to enlarge upon what those consequences are, but this at least would, I think, be the consequence, and this is what we are advised by the profession. It would lead to considerable extravagance in litigation and often perhaps to cases which really ought to be settled not being disposed of in that way, but being fought out to the bitter end in full knowledge that the whole of the costs on each side were going to be found by the State. We think that the suggestion which was made, and which I confess attracted me a good deal at one time—that the State should pay the balance between the amount which was ordered against the assisted litigant and the actual taxed costs—would really be impracticable.
    On the other hand, we have decided to modify the protection given to the assisted litigant under the Bill as it
    1344
    stands by relaxing the provision which prevented his dwelling house and household effects being taken into account. The tribunal, under this Amendment, will be entitled to consider the dwelling house and the household effects in the same manner as those things might be considered in assessing the applicant's means when he was applying for legal aid. If it appears that he could raise money on his house—raise an appropriate sum of money towards the costs of the successful litigant—then he will be required to do so.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call the Amendment in my name in line 24, because it might affect the course of discussion on this Amendment?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is not, because it is out of Order. It might involve a charge. Therefore, I cannot call it.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: These two Amendments really raise points of some importance. With regard to the first, it adopts phrasing which I think in substance was suggested in the course of our discussion in Committee. I should like to say that I do not propose to take up time in saying "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on every occasion on which he has met points raised from our side of the Committee, as he has done—and I am grateful to him—on a large number of occasions. The Amendment in line 20 is really one point where he has met us. I think that it makes a considerable improvement in the Bill. It goes some way to meeting the problem which is bound to arise where the assisted litigant is suing a person who is not receiving assistance but who is only just over the border-line from getting assistance. We know that under this scheme, if it works properly, the assisted litigant will contribute all except a portion of his capital and income to the cost of his own litigation. Therefore, it may well follow that if he fails in that litigation the court may conclude that it would be unreasonable to order him to pay to the successful unassisted litigant anything in the way of costs. Therefore, we have this problem, and it is a real dilemma; if we seek to place the

    1345
    liability for costs, for the full costs of the other side, on the assisted litigant if he fails, then in many cases that will be a very considerable deterrent to people from taking advantage of this scheme, which is designed for their assistance and benefit.
    The other limb of the dilemma is that there is a possibility that the unassisted litigant who is just above the ceiling from getting assistance, will think that it is not worth while fighting proper cases to be fought, cases which he would like to fight and which indeed if he had been a bit poorer he would have had assistance in fighting. He might say to himself, "If I win this case, I shall still have my own costs to pay and that will impoverish me to the extent that it is not worth fighting this case although right is completely on my side."
    That is the dilemma that arises. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone a long way towards the right solution—to leave it to the court to exercise its discretion as to what it is reasonable for the assisted but unsuccessful litigant to be ordered to pay in the way of costs, having regard to his means and to the conduct of the parties. I think I am right in saying, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, that in addition to this discretion which is left to the court, there is the intention of making regulations providing that the court can, if it thinks proper, revoke the legal aid certificate which would make the person who had received that certificate then liable for the full costs. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some statement to that effect in the course of the Committee stage. If that be so, and I take it that it is, it is, in my opinion, an important factor to be borne in mind.
    With reference to the second Amendment, that again brings the Bill more into line with the Report of the Rushcliffe Committee. I myself think it right that there should be that power to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in the case of a man having a substantial freehold which is unencumbered and which might be charged for the purpose of providing some funds towards his costs of litigation. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, both these Amendments are acceptable.
    Mr. Hogg: I will not detain the House for long on these Amendments, because in relation to them I stand in the position of an unsuccessful unassisted litigant. I fought and lost this battle in the Committee almost alone. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) had signed the Rushcliffe Report which was inconsistent with my Amendments, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was sticking to the Bill, which was equally inconsistent with them. While I would be the first to recognise that the Amendments now proposed, go some way to meet the criticisms which I made then, I confess that I cannot express myself as wholly satisfied either with them or with the reasoning which has led the Government and the Opposition to find them sufficient. We must remember exactly what it is that we are discussing in relation to this matter. I think everybody is greed that one of the defects of this scheme is the very sharp line of demarcation which exists between those who are just within the limit for assistance and those who are just outside it.
    I invite the House for a moment to consider what will be the result where a person who is just outside the limit for assistance is fortunate enough to prove that he was right all along—either that the claim of his more fortunate assisted opponent was false, and ought never to have been brought, or that the defence which his more fortunate and assisted opponent had put forward to his claim was bad, and the action ought never to have been resisted. In such circumstances the situation is this: despite the Amendments the unassisted litigant, who may be very little richer than the assisted litigant, will not have the protection he has at present, that is to say, he will not get his full party costs. He will have to find something—and it may be considerable where the claim was put forward in good faith—out of his own pocket. What is worse is that all the time he fights against his opponent, knowing that he was right all along, all the time he fights his case for justice, the whole power of the State and the Legal Aid Fund is trying to stop him. That is not an altogether very satisfactory position.

    1347
    7.30 p.m.
    That is where I start in this matter. I have been a supporter of this scheme throughout, but when it becomes law what is known as maintenance will be extended. Maintaining other people's cases, as it is known, has been not only not considered always meritorious but, in certain cases, has been considered a crime against the State. By virtue of the Bill we are now nationalising maintenance on a gigantic scale. We are making matters a great deal worse by ensuring that one party may well have to pay—and in a great many cases will have to pay—a substantial sum towards his own costs in establishing his just rights.
    Let us see how that will affect the matter in practice: The man who is faced with a claim for, say, £200 or £300, put forward by an assisted litigant, says to himself, "I know this claim is false and ought not to be made. There has been misrepresentation of the facts, or a mistake in law by the State employed counsel. But it will cost me £200 to fight it, and even if I win I shall not be able, thanks to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, to get the money out of the other side. I will, therefore, pay something to settle the case." Alternatively, put the man in the position of the plaintiff, claiming £200 against the assisted litigant. He says, "I know I am owed this money, but if I am to establish my claim it will cost me all that and perhaps more to do it, and I shall never get the money out of the Legal Aid Fund, or out of the defendant, thanks to the Legal Aid and Advice Act." In both cases there is an injustice.
    The proposal made in Committee, which was rejected by the Attorney-General, was simply that the difference between what the man would have got but for the Bill and what he would get under the Bill in order to recoup his own expenses in establishing his rights, should be borne by the Legal Aid Fund. The Attorney-General rejected that suggestion on grounds which, I must say, I find somewhat unsatisfactory. First, he said that cases which ought to be settled will be fought. I wonder. I cannot myself see that of necessity the situation will be any different under the alternative proposal than it is at the moment, when two substantial people are fighting one
    1348
    another. Each knows that if he wins he will get his costs, such as they are, out of the other side. I do not think that is a bad thing; my own view about litigation, uncertain and unreasonable as it is as a pastime, is that so far as possible the wealth or poverty of the litigant should not be either an advantage or a disadvantage in law.
    I cannot see that under the alternative suggestion, with the State underwriting the difference, there would be any greater likelihood of cases being fought which ought to be settled than there is at the moment between two substantial litigants. It is said that in these circumstances both would know that the State would underwrite the expenses of both sides. I do not find that to be the case. Under the Bill the assisted litigant will have to make his own contribution to his own costs—certainly if he is unsuccessful. That may well be substantial, especially when he comes somewhere near the line of what does or does not constitute entitlement to assistance. The unassisted litigant will have to bear the whole costs of the litigation if he is unsuccessful, and I can testify that that fear has a very considerable deterrent effect in practice. For these reasons I regret to say that I still remain of the same opinion. However, as I explained when I began, I recognise that in this matter I am an unsuccessful unassisted litigant and, having recorded my opinion, I will say no more.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I think the Amendment goes a long way to meet any such objection as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has just raised. One would think, listening to him, that there has been no such thing as Poor Persons' Rules. The same objection that has just been advanced by the hon. Member lies with equal force against the system as it works today. The only difference is that that system is being extended inasmuch as new categories can become assisted litigants. The hon. Member forgets that it will not be as easy as he thinks to impose upon the scheme.
    The person who seeks legal advice must, by the provision in Clause 1 (6), show that he has reasonable grounds for being a party to the litigation. That is not merely a question of making a recommendation to the committee before whom he goes; he has to demonstrate that he has reasonable

    1349
    grounds, and it is clear that the committee will not allow him to become an assisted person unless he does that. He also has to go further; the particular circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration. How we are to do more than is being sought to be done now, if we are to have legal aid at all, I do not know. It obviously must provide for the person whose circumstances are such that they require legal aid. Because it happens that certain people have got assistance is no reason in the world why other people, who are perfectly able to meet the costs of litigation, should find any advantage in that.
    There is only one point I would emphasise, and that is that a person ought not to be able to impose on another party some litigation which is obviously groundless, and in that way force him to incur expense. The only thing that can be done to avoid that is to take as careful steps as possible to prevent it happening. It seems to me that in the machinery of this Bill that is being done as far as it can be done. In addition, in my respectful submission, the Attorney-General's present Amendment goes a long way, even in circumstances of hardship, to visit the consequences of a person's needless act, should he rush into litigation when he has no grounds for doing so.
    Mr. Joynson - Hicks: Although I agree with neither, I must admit that I see more force in the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment by the Attorney-General than in those advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I do not want to pursue the hon. and learned Member's particular line of argument, because that would take us into the operation of the system at present in force under the Poor Persons Act and the Legal Aid Advice Bill procedure, which is outside the scope of this particular Amendment.
    I want to express a certain amount of support for the view advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I find myself in a real difficulty like he does. I fully appreciate the force of the argument that if a successful unassisted litigant is enabled to recover his costs from the Legal Aid Fund then litigation is being financed at the expense of the taxpayer. Personally, I think that
    1350
    that is a bad principle, though why hon. Members opposite should not approve of it I fail to see, because it is exactly the same thing in law as the Government have done for medicine. Everyone in this country is entitled to a health service at the expense of the taxpayer and the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford is entirely analogous, and would enable substantially everyone to obtain, up to a certain limit, legal aid at the expense of the taxpayer.
    I differ from the Attorney-General in the remarks which he made about the: desirable possibility which he foresaw of litigation being brought to a conclusion, as a result of a settlement being forced upon a party through his fear of the costs involved. That is not a good principle, and does not help to establish the purity of justice or of the law. If we are proceeding upon a system in which that influence is intended to work upon the mind and pocket of litigants, we are detracting from the merits of our own judicial system. I feel we are embarking upon a system of that sort, and I hope that the Attorney-General will go back to the straight and narrow path and not take into account that there are advantages in such an argument.
    7.45 p.m.
    On this actual question I cannot see that it can be right for the mind of a man to be influenced by the fear of the costs that he may have to pay as against one who has not so to do. Take the case of two neighbours, A and B. Both of them may be in practically identical circumstances, although one is five years older than the other and therefore five years more advanced in life. He may have through those five years a greater increment in his grade in the Civil Service, if they are in the Civil Service, as well as five years more savings. He is just outside the assistance limit, whereas his neighbour is just inside it. One has a case against the other. The first goes to the Legal Aid Committee, and is advised that prima facie he has a good case. The second goes to his own solicitor, and is similarly advised.
    What is, in fact, going to happen? In the assisted case the husband and wife are going to discuss it to see whether or not this law suit is going to be worth while. The factors which are going to guide them well are, first, that they have

    1351
    been advised they ought to win; secondly, the possible chance of what they are going to benefit by it; and, thirdly—and this is the all-important factor here in the average household—what they stand to lose. In the first household they know to a pretty exact degree their maximum liability and they can judge whether it will be great or small.
    In the other household, where the circumstances are practically identical except that the case is unassisted, the risk is far more difficult to assess, and the liability, which may be imposed upon the household if they lose, is certainly going to be considerably greater. But it is much more difficult for the householder himself or his solicitor to see at that time what the liability will be. It is that element of unknown risk which is going to influence the man who is unassisted to say to his wife, or vice versa, that it is not worth while for the sake of their home and their children to run that risk. They will say that it will be better to find out what the case can be settled for. "When we know for certainty how much it involves," they might say, "then we can decide whether or not to go on with it at all."
    Those are the actual facts as I see them which will influence the mind of two people. This fear of costs has become a factor in litigation, and is a matter which we ought to do everything to avoid. I appreciate that some steps have been taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the Amendment he has moved, and they are steps in the right direction though to my mind they do not go far enough. I hope it may be possible in another place for further consideration to be given to this matter, so that these difficulties may be overcome.
    The Attorney-General: I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) in his views that fear of having to pay costs ought not to add to the difficulties of litigation of just causes. I do not think I follow him in his argument that there should be a significant difference between the position of assisted and unassisted litigants in assessing in advance their potential liability for costs. I should have thought that in practice they would be in substantially the same position. The assisted litigant will know that if he succeeds he will, at most, have to pay
    1352
    whatever contribution has been fixed at the time of his application, and that he will not even have to pay that, if he succeeds in recovering his costs from the unassisted opponent.
    He will know at the worst that he will have to pay whatever contribution has been fixed in connection with his application for legal assistance, and in addition such sum—it may be the whole amount—of costs awarded against him by the tribunal, or such sum as the tribunal thinks reasonable that he should pay towards the costs of the successful defendant. That will be his position. He will not be able to assess exactly what the defendant's costs will be nor what proportion of their total he will be ordered to pay. He will know that he will have to pay a substantial amount.
    The unassisted litigant, on the other hand, will know that if he wins he will get from the court an order in respect of some part of his costs. He will be able to assess, with as much accuracy as I suppose he can assess now, whether he will recover those costs. Even now, when a person is sued in the courts he may find it very difficult to know whether or not, if he wins his case and gets an order for costs, he will be able to collect them. The unassisted litigant will be in the same position in regard to that matter. He will know that if he loses the litigation he will be in the same position as if his opponent were not assisted at all, because he will have to pay the whole of the costs. I do not think there is much difference between them in that respect.
    This is a most difficult problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that it is so. He says that he is of the same opinion still. I wish I could convince him against his will. It really is a most difficult dilemma. On one point I think that the hon. Member for Oxford did not state with complete accuracy the position which arises in practice. In practice in the great majority of cases—not, of course, in all—we find that on the one side there is a comparatively wealthy party, supported by an insurance company, a newspaper, or a big company. On the other side there is a party less wealthy. The Rushcliffe Committee realised, as I think we realised upstairs and as I hope the House will realise, that the would-be

    1353
    litigant who was not wealthy but was not penniless, the man who had saved up £200 or £300 and perhaps had a house subject to a mortgage, even if assisted in regard to his own costs under the scheme, would still be deterred from entering upon litigation, even if advised that he had a good case, by the risk that if he lost he might be sold up.
    That risk does not apply to a man who is penniless. He can pursue his litigation without regard to the consequences to himself. He knows that if he loses he will not be any worse off. A man who, by thrift, has saved a little money and who is likely to be compelled to pay his costs if he fails in his action, is often deterred in pursuing his action, not because of his own costs but because of the risks of the law and the danger that if the law turns out to be against him he may have to pay the costs of the other side. It was the fact that that kind of risk operates in practice and is a very serious deterrent, that led the Rushcliffe Committee, and led us, to take the view that some protection must be given to the assisted litigant.
    I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) that we are really only expanding somewhat further the principle that has been recognised under the Poor Persons Rules. We are expanding it further in the sense that we are applying it now to what will no doubt be a vast number of cases, whereas in the past it has applied in practice to very few. We are not expanding it to the same extent as it exists already in those very few cases. In those very few cases, virtually no costs can be ordered against an assisted party. Under the provisions of the Bill the amount of costs which may be ordered against an assisted but unsuccessful litigant can be very substantial.
    Mr. Hogg: I think the Attorney-General will agree that, in the existing situation, against those who get poor persons' assistance an order for costs on anything like a High Court scale would be impossible.
    The Attorney-General: That is quite true, but that does not make the injustice, if injustice it be, to the successful defendant any the less. If aid were not given to the poor person in this case, the wealthy defendant would not be exposed
    1354
    to litigation and no question of costs would arise. When aid is given under the Poor Persons Rules and the plaintiff fails, the successful defendant is unable to recover any part of his costs from his opponent and has to pay the whole of his own costs. It really is the application of a principle, the necessity for which has been recognised in our procedure for a very long time. I would only add that I did not, I am afraid, deal with this matter, under the Amendment which I am proposing in page 3, line 20, when I moved the Amendments all together.
    The position now will be that the assisted litigant will have to satisfy the tribunal as to his means. He will have to go into the witness box and he will be subject to cross-examination as to his means. The tribunal will consider what his means are and how far he has acted honestly and reasonably in bringing the claim, and the general conduct of the litigation. I commend the Bill to the House. Faced with this troublesome dilemma we think that on the whole that we have adopted the solution which will result, I do not say in no injustice, but in the least injustice.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 28, leave out "and."
    In line 29, after "prescribed," insert:
    "and except as aforesaid."—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 3. — (CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASSISTED PERSON AND CHARGE ON PROPERTY RECOVERED.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 23, after "order," insert "or agreement."—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 6.—(SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Where a barrister or solicitor is aggrieved by any decision excluding him (whether permanently or temporarily) from the panels or any of them, he may appeal against the decision to the High Court and the High Court (whose decision shall be final) may confirm or quash the decision appealed against or may substitute such decision as the court thinks fit.
    Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating appeals to the High Court under this subsection, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which appeals may be brought."

    1355
    The House knows that it is intended, as part of the legal aid and advice scheme, that tribunals should be established for dealing with complaints which may be made against the conduct of solicitors or banisters who are members of the panels to be established under Clause 6 and who act improperly in one way or another. We had some considerable discussion of this matter upstairs. I then gave an assurance that an appropriate appellate tribunal would be established for hearing appeals from those bodies. At the same time, appropriate steps would be taken administratively to ensure that the complaints tribunals, as we call them, would not deal with cases which were more proper to be dealt with under the existing disciplinary machinery of the professions, either by the Inns of Court or by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society. In regard to that matter, steps have been taken or will be taken to ensure that the complaints tribunals will not deal with cases which can and will be heard by the Benchers or by the Disciplinary Committee, and this Amendment is designed to create a right of appeal to the High Court.
    8.0 p.m.
    The High Court, under the existing law, is also the appellate tribunal from the existing disciplinary committees, that is to say, from the Benchers or from the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society. Consequently, that appellate tribunal will be able to adminster uniform rules and principles in dealing with these cases, and all appeals, whether from the existing disciplinary bodies of the profession or from the complaints committee, will come up eventually to the High Court which will have jurisdiction in regard to them all. I need only add that the Inns of Court, the Bar Council, the Law Society, and also the Lord Chief Justice, have been consulted in regard to these proposals, and I am authorised to say that they think them appropriate as far as their interest is concerned.
    Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting us on this point on the lines that were suggested in the Committee. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has declared his interest on this occasion but, if he has not, he and I ought to do
    1356
    so, and I shall do it on his behalf as well as on my own because as Benchers of an Inn of Court we are concerned with the matter of this Amendment. While disclosing that interest, may I say that I am grateful, and also assure the House that I believe it will be an excellent thing that those matters which are proper for the ordinary disciplinary procedure—whether it be at the Bar where the matter goes to the Benchers, or in the solicitor's branch of the profession where it goes to the Statutory Committee—should be kept in the hands of these bodies, and we welcome the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
    On the other group of cases, those which will deal with points which would not in the ordinary way be the subject of complaint, again I think that letting the different tribunals meet in the appellate tribunal of the High Court is the most satisfactory solution that could be found. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, this was discussed for some time upstairs and I have no desire to detain the House except again to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting us on this point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 30, after "aid," insert
    "or of an agreement for costs so made which provides for taxation."
    In line 31, after "order," insert "or agreement."—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 8.—(FUNCTIONS OF LAW SOCIETY.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, after "Society," to insert "but who are barristers or solicitors."
    This is a drafting Amendment which makes it clear that the persons to be appointed to the committees administering legal aid will be qualified barristers or solicitors.
    Mr. Royle: I cannot agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this is a drafting Amendment. Upstairs we discussed some other aspects of this subject and although as a non-lawyer I speak with bated breath on a Bill of this kind, I feel that the point of view of the non-lawyer ought to be put. In order to make myself clear, I will read the original subsection:

    1357
    "Any committee set up as aforesaid may include persons who are not members of the Law Society.…"
    If my memory serves me aright, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) moved an Amendment upstairs to delete the word "may" and to insert the word "shall." What we had in mind upstairs would be completely ruled out if the Amendment just moved were accepted. I suggest that while the subsection stands as it is, there is an opportunity for people who are not lawyers to be represented on those committees, but this Amendment would mean that only lawyers can sit on committees which are to give legal advice and assistance to prospective litigants.
    I want briefly to express the view which some of us expressed upstairs, that it would be desirable to have on these committees people who were not members of the profession in either branch. I envisage people who have had experience of the administration of the law in a magisterial capacity. I envisage people who are clerks to local justices who may not be lawyers by examination. Amongst those people are men and women of tremendous experience and knowledge in the administration of the law, and they should be represented on the committees.
    Good as this Bill is, it is becoming a sew-up between two branches of the legal profession. When it is a question of people coming for aid and advice in times of distress and difficulty, it would be advantageous to have someone on the committee who understood things from more than a purely legal point of view. If this Amendment is carried, all that will be left to the non-lawyer is what is provided in Clause 13, namely, the establishment of an advisory committee which will be appointed ultimately by the Lord Chancellor. This would probably mean that in the whole of our land only one or two people would have any part in the administration of this Measure who are not connected directly with the legal profession.
    Whilst I know that at this stage of the Bill it is difficult to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend to provide for what I am now advocating, or to get him to withdraw his Amendment, and whilst I would never think of asking the House
    1358
    to divide on the Report stage on such a matter, I would remind you, Sir, that we had a Division on it in the Committee. I sincerely hope that before this Bill is disposed of—in another place—perhaps something will be done to ensure that people who are not lawyers may take a fairly prominent part in the administration of this important Measure.
    The Attorney-General: I think that perhaps I did mislead the House a little in saying that this is a drafting Amendment. It is, perhaps, a little more than that, in the sense that it makes the Bill clearly embody what was at all times to the knowledge of the House and the Committee upstairs the intention of the Bill. It is perhaps a little doubtful whether the Clause as drafted fulfilled that intention.
    The intention of the Bill—and this was made clear on Second Reading and in Committee—was that these committees, which are to be established to operate the legal aid scheme, should be professional committees. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) that it is most desirable that we should have on these committees, to use his phrase, "people who understand things." It is always desirable to have on committees people who understand things, and the kind of people who understand particular things depends on the things to be understood. These committees have to understand legal matters; that is all. They are not concerned with matters of a non-legal character. They are concerned simply with the question whether or not an applicant who comes before them for assistance has a prima facie case which ought to be litigated. The committee which decides that will consist of three, or at the most five, people; they will deal with it quite informally, and as lawyers who are being consulted by a client.
    When I want legal advice, I do not go to lay persons. I go to a solicitor, and I ask him to guide me and assist me with his great knowledge. If he insisted before giving me his advice on calling in some social worker or some outside person I should probably be exceedingly annoyed about it. I see no reason why a person who is unable to employ his own solicitor and pay for him, but has to seek to take legal advice under the provisions of this scheme, should have lay people

    1359
    inflicted upon him when he wants to obtain legal advice and assistance. Nor do I see any possible way in which lay members could assist on these committees. These committees will have to decide whether the would-be litigant has a good case, whether he has got an action for negligence against a motorist, whether he has got a right of action against a shopkeeper, or whether he has got some other form of action. What possible assistance would it be to him or to the working of this scheme to have a motorist or a shopkeeper or a local councillor sitting on committees whose sole function was to advise on the legal rights of the would-be litigant?
    Accordingly, while appreciating the point which has been made with, if I may say so, great persistence by my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford, we must maintain the position that these committees are legal committees which will deal with litigants or would-be litigants in exactly the same way as their own lawyers would and on which it would be quite inappropriate to introduce lay representation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "of the Council of the Law Society."
    This, I think, is a drafting Amendment. It makes it clear that the committee to make or to vary the legal aid scheme shall be set up by the Law Society under the existing powers of the Solicitors Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 33, and to insert:
    "(except during any vacancy) include not less than three persons nominated by the General Council of the Bar and a person nominated by the Lord Chancellor."
    This Amendment gives effect to the arrangement which hag been reached between the Bar Council and the Law Society that three members of the Bar shall be appointed to the scheme-making committee, and it emphasises the joint responsibility of both branches of the profession in connection with this matter.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to ask the Attorney-General a question. I do not quite follow how this will work out in practice. As I read the Clause as it will finally be amended, it will state:
    "The functions of the Law Society in making or varying any scheme under this section shall be performed by a committee whose members shall"—
    and now I paraphrase—include not less than three members of the Bar Council. I do not quite follow how a committee consisting of members of the Council of the Law Society can include persons on the other side of the profession, even though nominated by the Lord Chancellor. I feel that I have probably misread the matter somewhere, but if I have, possibly others will do so as well.
    Mr. Royle: Before we part with this Amendment, I should very much like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on having solved their difficulties as to whether the figures should be three or two in this case.
    Mr. Gallacher: If my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) agrees, may I ask the Attorney-General if he would consider making a change so that this provision would read:
    "not less than three persons nominated by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress"?
    That would be a much more democratic body.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, after "operation," to insert "and finance."
    Perhaps at the same time I may deal with the two Amendments in page 14, lines 7 and 8. These all deal with similar matters. They are designed to carry out an undertaking which I gave in Committee that the annual report which the Law Society will make to the Lord Chancellor, and which has to be laid before Parliament, shall be accompanied, when it is laid, by the report which the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee will make to him upon the Law Society's report, and also that it shall deal with the financial position of the scheme so that Parliament will be able to discuss

    1361
    the whole matter of the working of the scheme and will have a proper appreciation of how the scheme is operating in regard to finances and other matters without waiting for the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the purely financial aspects.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for tabling these Amendments. I think they meet a rather important point, and I hope that perhaps in other instances this procedure may serve as a precedent. It is useful to get before Parliament a report coupled with a financial statement earlier than we often do now with regard to some other matters about which, if I said anything now, I should certainly be out of Order.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(REGULATIONS.)
    Amendment made: In page 13, line 4, after "order," insert "or agreement."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 13, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "or has a reasonable expectation of receiving financial or other help from a body of which he is a member."
    This is in substance a drafting Amendment to deal with the point about which we had considerable discussion in Committee upstairs. I think it follows the general sense of the Committee, and it clarifies the position as it arises under the Clause. It makes it clear that before refusing legal aid to an applicant on the ground that facilities are available to him, the committee has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation of receiving financial or other help from a body of which he is a member.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 46, to leave out "legal procedure," and to insert "the work of the courts."
    This Amendment follows the exact wording of the Rushcliffe recommendations, and makes it clear that people with knowledge of the courts, although they are not lawyers, will be eligible to advise on the Advisory Committee—such
    1362
    as social workers, magistrates and persons of that kind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 7, after "operation," insert "and finance."
    In line 8, at end, insert:
    "and when the committee have considered it shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of it and of any comments or recommendations made by the committee."—[The Attorney-General.]

    Clause 14.—(OFFENCES.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 18, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to enable persons who are charged with offences under this Clause to go to trial by jury if they so desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 18, to leave out from "both," to the end of line 19.
    I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendment, in line 25 at the end, to insert:
    "(3) A county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action brought to recover the loss sustained by the legal aid fund by reason of the failure of a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice to comply with any such regulations as aforesaid, or by reason of a false statement or false representation made by such a person in furnishing information for the purposes of this Part of this Act, notwithstanding that the claim in the action is for a greater amount than that allowed under section forty of the County Courts Act, 1934."
    Under this Clause, a person who wilfully makes a false statement is liable to fine or imprisonment by the court before which he is tried in respect of that statement. In Committee I accepted, perhaps too hastily, an Amendment providing that in addition to that criminal penalty such a person should repay to the legal aid fund the whole amount of the net liability which that fund had occurred on his account, and that amount should be recoverable in the same court before which the man had been convicted of making the false statement. On consideration, we came to the conclusion that that was too harsh a penalty for the circumstances envisaged here. I think that the hon. and learned Member for

    1363
    Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who moved the Amendment in Committee, will probably agree with the view we have taken about the matter.
    The Clause as it stands, following the Amendment in Committee, might result in this: that a man may have to repay to the legal aid fund moneys it had expended or expenses it had incurred on his behalf quite irrespective of the false statement, and, indeed, quite possibly before the false statement had ever been made. An appropriate principle it seems to me is the principle which applies ordinarily in this field of law, that the person who makes a false and fraudulent statement should pay the damages which that statement caused to someone else, which in this case is the legal aid fund. It may be that a false statement, although it would be an offence under this Clause, would not cause damage to the legal aid fund and would not lead the Law Society to take any action, or incur any expenses, which it would not otherwise have taken. In such a case, to require the assisted litigant to repay the whole amount of the liability would really be an undisguised punishment imposed over and above the criminal punishment provided by the Clause.
    Accordingly, we thought it proper to table the present Amendment, which will substitute what is in fact the ordinary rule where false or fraudulent statements are made; that if the legal aid fund incurs any loss by reason of the false statement which the assisted litigant has made, then it may recover it and the court will determine how much the amount of that loss following upon the false statement actually is. In order to ensure the matter may be dealt with expeditiously and cheaply, because in this case, ex hypothesi, the person assisted will have no means because he will have been an assisted litigant, we have proposed the matter should be within the jurisdiction of the county court. In most cases it would in any event fall within the jurisdiction of the county court, but there may be some cases where costs have been incurred which would otherwise just fall outside the county court's jurisdiction and would have to go to a higher court. We thought it better for all these cases to go to the county court so that they can be dealt with at the minimum expense and as quickly as may be.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that this Amendment is an improvement to the Bill, although I must admit that the words we are now moving to leave out are the words I moved to put in during the Committee stage. I think the Committee accepted the principle behind the words that now appear in the Bill which we are going to leave out, and that in substance this Amendment says in greater length and with greater accuracy what it was we were trying to achieve by the Amendment in Committee.
    I have only two points to raise in regard to the Amendment, and that is that, in addition to giving a right of recovery for any loss that may fall on the legal aid fund by reason of a false statement or false representation made by the person seeking or who has obtained legal aid, there is a right of recovery of any loss sustained by reason of failure to comply with any regulations as aforesaid. I am not quite certain whether the wording of the first part of the Amendment is adequate to give the Law Society, who presumably will be the plaintiffs, a right of action in respect of a breach of any one of those regulations. I do not think there is any need to say more on that point, because it is obviously the intention that the Law Society should have that right of action. I merely refer to it so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have an opportunity of considering the wording to see whether the point is adequately covered.
    I recognise the force of the argument for saying that the county court should have jurisdiction in this matter even though the amount may exceed the amount within its normal jurisdiction. There are, of course, arguments in favour of adopting that in this particular instance, although I would not be inclined to assume that the assisted litigant who has obtained legal aid by false representation may, because he has received assistance, be impoverished. The false statement may be one about his means. He may have possessed considerable wealth and the loss sustained by the legal aid fund may be due to his having made false representation in regard to his means. I think it would be convenient if this matter should be determined in the county court, and for these reasons I support both these Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 25, at end, insert:
    "(3) A county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action brought to recover the loss sustained by the legal aid fund by reason of the failure of a person seeking or receiving legal aid or advice to comply with any such regulation as aforesaid, or by reason of a false statement or false representation made by such a person in furnishing information for the purposes of this Part of this Act, notwithstanding that the claim in the action is for a greater amount than that allowed under section forty of the County Courts Act, 1934."—[The Attorney-General.

    Clause 17.—(RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID.)
    8.30 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Before a person is granted free legal aid under any of the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of this section he may be required to furnish a written statement in the prescribed form about matters relevant for determining whether his means are insufficient to enable him to obtain legal aid, and if a person in furnishing such a written statement as foresaid (whether required so to do or not) knowingly makes any false statement or false representation he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to both.
    The form for the purpose of this subsection shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations to be made by statutory instrument."
    The procedure for applying for legal aid in the criminal courts is somewhat different from that which will be introduced by this Bill in connection with civil proceedings and there will not be the same opportunity for any examination as to the means of the applicant for legal assistance. In Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) suggested for that reason that there ought to be a statutory declaration as to the means of the applicant. We felt that there might be delays and difficulties of one kind and another in having a statutory declaration in every case, but this Amendment will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a form on which applications for legal aid will have to be made under a penalty for false statements. That form will contain a number of questions in a simple form likely to be readily answerable by the kind of persons who may have to fill it in so as to give information about their means and so forth, and on receipt of that form it will in the discretion of the
    1366
    justices whether to have further inquiry made. Indeed, it will be in the discretion of the justices whether or not to insist upon the form itself being filled in. They may be satisfied without having the form filled in. They may have other information as to the man's means and may be able to grant legal aid without it, but they will have the right to ask for the form and to pursue inquiries under it.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to say "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This, again, is an important Amendment, and it should be effective in preventing to a large extent and, I hope, completely, abuse of the system with regard to legal aid in the criminal courts of the country.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Attorney-General a question about this. It applies also to an Amendment we recently discussed. If a person signs a statement and makes a false return in it he can be prosecuted but probably the prosecution will take place after he has received legal aid for the case in respect of which he applied for assistance. Between the time of the trial of that case and the discovery of the fraud, his circumstances may have changed and his fortunes may have fallen, so that when he is being prosecuted for signing a false statement he may be in a position to sign a correct statement and become eligible for legal aid. In that case, will he receive legal aid in connection with the prosecution for fraudulently getting legal aid?
    The Attorney-General: I admire, as I always do, the ingenuity and imagination of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). In that case I think it would be possible for the man to apply for legal aid. Whether he got it or not would be in the discretion of the court.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21.—(COST OF LEGAL AID IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, "after "taxed," to insert "or assessed."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. There will be a number of cases in which the costs are very small and in which, consequently, it would be inappropriate to go to the expense and complication of having a formal taxation by a taxing

    1367
    officer. Consequently the Law Society must have power to make arrangements for ascertaining the cost in such a case without the formality of a taxation. An Amendment we have done to the Third Schedule provides what arrangements should be made, power being given to the Lord Chancellor to deal with the matter by regulation.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Third Schedule.—(REMUNERATION OF PERSONS GIVING LEGAL AID UNDER PART I.)
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 30, at the end, to add:
  "5. Regulations may provide that for the purposes of this Schedule, instead of costs being taxed in the ordinary way,—

  (a) they shall be taxed by the prescribed person (whether an officer of a court or not); or

  (b) the amount of the costs shall be fixed (whether by an officer of a court or not) by an assessment made without a taxation but with a view to allowing as nearly as may be the same amount as on a taxation."

  This Amendment is associated with that to Clause 21 in page 20, line 6, and is consequential. It enables the Lord Chancellor to make regulations in the terms of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]
  8.36 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: Before we finally part with the Bill and speed it on its way to another place, there are a few comments I should like to make about it. It has, perhaps, not been a very exciting Bill. Its passage through this House has inevitably been characterised by a great many speeches by lawyers, upon whom the lay Members look with healthy suspicion; and it has of necessity involved a good deal of rather technical and legal discussion.
  We ought not to underrate the considerable importance of the Bill. It is true that it has not given rise to any of those scenes, which, judging from the headlines, some people think occupy the whole of our Parliamentary time. It has not necessitated the use of the Guillotine or even the Closure, which
  1368
  only goes to show how well we can conduct our legislating activities in this House when hon. Members opposite accept reasonably the proposals, always beneficent, which are put forward by the Government. Judged by any proper standard it really is an important Bill, which accomplishes a much-needed and significant social reform and which is worthy to take its place with the great code of social legislation which has been passed by this Parliament.
  We attach—and rightly attach—great importance to the rule of law, to the high regard in which the courts and judges are held, and to the fact, particularly after the passing of the Crown Proceedings Act, that the little man can not only have recourse to the courts for the just settlement of his private disputes as between himself and some other citizen, but that he can go to the courts and appear before His Majesty's judges on complete equality with the highest officers and Departments of State. I say that we attach great importance, and rightly so, to these principles, but too often in the past these things have for a large section of the community been theoretical advantages rather than real ones. The cost of litigation, the inability of the poor—and, indeed, of the not so poor—to face the risks and expenses that litigation involves, have in practice, as I think we recognise on all sides of the House, and as was recognised by the Rushcliffe Committee, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was so distinguished a member, made the courts and the law of the country largely inaccessible to a very large part of the community.
  This Bill, without in any way encroaching on the freedom and independence of both sections of the legal profession, will go a long way to removing that reproach, as reproach it was, which has previously been made against our system. I say it will go a long way; it will not go the whole way. Later on, by one method or another, I hope we may be able to do more to make the courts readily accessible, and inexpensively accessible, to everybody. I hope, for instance, when the Committee now presided over by Lord Justice Evershed has made its Report, we shall find means of cheapening and simplifying the procedure of the courts so that the burden imposed upon

  1369
  those—particularly, perhaps, members of the middle classes—who will still have to pay their own legal expenses when they engage in litigation will be diminished. In the meantime, we have gone a considerable step forward and made a very significant improvement in our legal arrangements; we have ensured that those who could not bear the burden of legal expenses at all would at any rate be able to obtain assistance.
  I think it is correct—there have been figures published about this—that the average wages earned now amount to something of the order of £6 10s. or £6 14s. a week. Such a man, earning that average wage, married and entitled to the various disregards and allowances which are taken into account under this Bill, will now, in a proper case, receive free legal advice and free legal aid. Above that, on a contributory basis, people with a gross income amounting to as much as £700, or perhaps £800, will be able to receive some assistance from the State in the conduct of their litigation.
  This is a Bill which will bring benefit, improved benefit, to the great majority of the community and will make the theory, that the doors of the courts are open to everyone, rich and poor alike, a greater reality than it has been in the past. Now that the Bill leaves us, after the various Amendments made to it upstairs and here, I think it is a good Bill. It is by no means the last word. The last statute—and I mean not the first, but the last statute—which purported to deal in a general way with the provision of legal aid to the poor was passed in the year 1494. I do not hold out any such expectation of longevity for the present Bill. It may be that before very long we shall find means, either by regulation or amendment, of improving it, because, of course, it is in many respects and of necessity an experimental Measure. It may very easily be that when we have had some more experience of its operation we shall be able to improve upon it. But, allowing for that possibility, I think we can say with some confidence that this Bill, based as it was on the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, will be found by experience to provide at least a framework which will stand the test of time and lead to a system of legal aid and advice unequalled in any other country in the world.
  1370
  Before we part with the Bill I should like to express my appreciation of the great assistance which we have had from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in particular from the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, who brought to our assistance, in discussing the details of the Bill, the great knowledge which he acquired on the Rushcliffe Committee.
  There can be no doubt that in accepting the heavy responsibilities which are cast upon them by this Bill, the Law Society and the Bar Council, working as I hope and am sure they will, in very close and harmonious co-operation, are undertaking a task of great importance and difficulty. Fortunately the Law Society have already had great experience in problems of this kind in connection with the operation of the existing schemes under the poor persons' rules. I take the opportunity of saying that it is very gratifying to observe from the report which the Law Society published a day or two ago on the operation of the existing poor persons' procedure that the work under these rules is well up-to-date. The statistics which have been published in the report illustrate that the work of the London Committee is completely up-to-date, and that even in the Provinces, where there is a substantial increase in the number of applications which have been made, the number of cases pending at the end of the year was fewer than it had been at any time for several years past.
  The Law Society are making every effort to ensure that there may be no arrears of cases anywhere in the country so that when the new legal aid scheme comes into operation the fewest possible number of cases will have to be transferred from the old to the new procedure. The Law Society are, as I am sure the House will agree, much to be congratulated on the way in which they conducted and discharged their duties under the existing rules. I should like to take the opportunity on my own behalf, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I am sure on behalf of the whole House, of expressing our appreciation to the Law Society, and also to the members of the Bar, for all the work they have done both in the operation of the existing poor person's procedure and in the preparation of this great new scheme. I feel confident that we can entrust this great new scheme to the legal profession with full confi-

  1371
  dence that they will administer it wisely, efficiently and successfully.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to begin by thanking the Attorney-General for the kind things which he said about me and about such assistance as I have been able to give in making this a better Bill. I should like to express my thanks to him for his receptiveness to the ideas that emanated so frequently from this side of the House. If I might make a rejoinder to one of his other observations, I would say that Bills would leave this House very much better and vastly improved if the Government would always adopt such a receptive attitude to our suggestions.
  I should like to make a few observations on the Third Reading of this Bill because it was shortly after my election to this House that I was asked to become a member of the Rushcliffe Committee. That was an interesting and enjoyable experience, although it entailed many hours of hard work. That was in 1944. Five years have elapsed, and those of us who served on that Committee now have the satisfaction of knowing that our work was not in vain—it is so largely embodied in this Bill which, unless any unforeseen event occurs in the immediate future, has a very good prospect of reaching the Statute Book. That is not by any means the experience of every committee. Reports are so often pigeonholed and forgotten.
  The fact that that has not been the fate of the Rushcliffe Committee's Report indicates two things; first, the merit of the report, and secondly the need for the provision of legal aid. We all agree as to the necessity for legal aid for people whose means are not sufficient to enable them to defend themselves in proper cases, or to commence litigation for the recovery of damages as compensation for serious injury. But any scheme for legal aid should not, of course, encourage quarrelsomeness or bickering, or indeed facilitate the ventilation of every petty squabble in the courts. It would not be in the public interest that legal aid given at the expense of the taxpayer, should stimulate a vast increase of trumpery litigation; or indeed that it should be used as a method of extortion from a wealthy and unassisted litigant.
  1372
  In my belief this Bill avoids those dangers and contains adequate safeguards, both in the fact that the assisted litigant will have to make a contribution from his own income and capital, and from the fact that he has to get the approval of the local committee as to the reasonableness of his conduct in defending or commencing litigation before he receives legal assistance. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a great burden will be thrown upon those who staff the local committees. As soon as this scheme commences they will probably get a large number of applications for legal aid which they will have to consider with great care. I believe it is a burden that the lawyers on those committees will shoulder willingly. We have often been the subject of ridicule, but lawyers of both branches have been in the past, and are now, ready to assist those in difficulties. I do not think that any fair-minded person can say that this is a Bill for the benefit of lawyers for it should not be forgotten that in addition to the work they will have to do on those committees, they will be undertaking legal work at considerably less than what is regarded as a reasonable remuneration for the work they do.
  This Bill had a favourable reception on Second Reading, and I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it has been much improved in Committee and today. I do not suppose for one moment that this is the last word. We may experience further difficulties which we have not anticipated would arise. But in my opinion this is a good Bill; it is as good as we can make it. At least we have the satisfaction of knowing that it is not leaving this House with a large part unconsidered and undiscussed. I welcome this departure of His Majesty's Government from the precedent which they created in respect of other major Bills, and I hope that it will be followed more frequently in the future. I regret that legal aid is not at present to be available before tribunals, which are numerous and varied in character and have a very great bearing on the life of the ordinary individual. I regret also that legal aid is not to be immediately available in cases of defamation. I appreciate the reasons why the scheme has not been extended to cover—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and learned Member cannot discuss in a Third Reading speech what it would be desirable to include in the Bill, however much he may think so.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was discussing what the contents of the Bill show to be excluded.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was aware of that, but the hon. and learned Member must discuss only what is in the Bill; I think he knows that.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought I was keeping within the rules of Order by discussing the First Schedule which refers to excluded causes of action and specifically excludes them. I was regretting their exclusion. I recognise the reasons why that is done, but I hope the time will soon come when instead of being, excluded, they can be included.
  This Bill is not just the fruit of the efforts of the Rushcliffe Committee. Many other bodies have from the beginning taken a great part in working out this scheme. The numerous bodies which gave evidence before that Committee obviously took a very great deal of trouble. In particular, I should like to join with the Attorney-General in the tribute he paid to the Law Society, to the Bar Council and to the members of the Bar. This is no party Measure. It would be wrong for any single party to seek to claim sole credit for it. I should also pay a tribute to Lord Simon who appointed the Rushcliffe Committee.
  I conclude by saying that if it had not been for the disaster which in my view overcame this country in 1945, we should have had the pleasure of introducing this Bill. In my belief, this Bill will go far to prevent the suffering of injustice through lack of means. It has been welcomed in all quarters of this House. It will be welcomed throughout the country. If all the Measures of this Government brought equal benefit to the people, then indeed they might win the next Election.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. Boyle: Because of the other Business which we must get through tonight, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it would be a pity if nobody speeded the Bill on its way except the Attorney-
  1374
  General and other Members who are also members of the legal profession. One or two of us have had some part to play in other stages of the Bill, although with our Amendments we have not met with the success which has been achieved by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We who are not lawyers but who have been associated with this Measure wish it well. We regard it, in principle, as an excellent Bill. We feel that it will be of tremendous assistance to vast numbers of men and women. Because of that, as it goes forward to another place, all of us say that we sincerely hope that it may have an easy passage so that it may be put on the Statute Book quickly. That is what I say with regard to the principle of the Bill.
  I wish that I could be as enthusiastic with regard to its administration when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I am still concerned. The Attorney-General has already referred to my persistence on one or two points. At the risk of being accused of repetition and persistence, I wish to express regret that the committees as constituted under the Bill will deal with matters which I consider could be dealt with in a much more efficient way if we used other people in addition to lawyers in the administration of this Measure. I would only say that I think that it is regrettable that in civil cases which are heard before courts of summary jurisdiction, the decision whether or not legal aid and advice shall be given will be in the hands of a committee rather than in the hands of the magistrates—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt. That is exactly what the House, on the Report stage, decided not to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it now.
  Mr. Royle: I thought that I was getting dangerously near the line. At the same time, I submit that I might be in Order if I talked about what the Bill is actually doing. The Bill is laying down that these cases will be heard by a committee. I express the view that that is not the correct way in which to deal with the matter. I wish briefly to express that regret and to hope—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: However winning his ways may be, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot go any further than that.
  Mr. Boyle: I accept your Ruling, Sir. Some of these points were made during the Committee stage. Therefore, I will content myself by saying that all of us really desire full success for this Measure, and I hope the time may come when people who are not lawyers may have an opportunity of playing a part in its administration.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Basil Nield: I am particularly happy to follow the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) because I have some special interest in the constituency which he so ably represents. Those of us who are members of the legal profession would be the first to welcome the views of laymen on a subject of this kind. The object of this Bill, namely, to make legal aid and advice more readily available for persons of small and moderate means, is one which will be found commendable in all quarters of the House. Hon. Members will all agree that we hope for a state of affairs where none will be precluded by lack of means from pursuing or defending his legal rights.
  In such a scheme, there are two dangers to be guarded against by those administering it. First, there is evasion of the means qualification, and, secondly, there is the question of vexatious litigation. On the first point, it is very proper that there should be a penal clause to deal with those who make false statements and misrepresentations as to their means in order to obtain the aid which we desire should go to those who need it. So far as the vexatious, frivolous and vindictive litigant is concerned—and he does unhappily exist—there are safeguards against him, as the House will appreciate.
  The exclusions referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) are directed to this aspect of the matter. Certain causes of action are placed outside the purview of this Measure, and on that point I would like to reiterate a point which I raised on Second Reading and in Committee concerning the words "wholly or partly" in Part II of the First Schedule. The point which I ask should receive some consideration is that one may find two causes of action joined, one which is covered in the Measure and another which is excluded. One knows
  1376
  that there are such cases in which most hon. Members will take the view that assistance should be given, and this Schedule would prevent it. There is here a flaw in the Bill which might possibly receive attention later on.
  It has been rightly said that the Legislature here is placing a great trust in and a great responsibility upon the legal profession. The Law Society is to prepare and administer the scheme, in consultation with the General Council of the Bar. It is right, of course, that both branches of the profession should co-operate. I merely desire to say that I feel that the profession will respond to that confidence which is being reposed in it. Panels of lawyers who will undertake this work are to be set up but there will be retained to the litigant the right of choice, which is very important.
  One matter which caused some of us concern was the proposal for the removal of lawyers from these panels for misconduct. Both branches of the profession have their disciplinary machinery for dealing with those members of the profession who are guilty of some misconduct. It would seem that those who are not fit to be upon the panels could well be dealt with in this way. However it is salutary that there is now included a right of appeal to the High Court against removal from the panels. In conclusion, I repeat and feel quite certain that the legal profession will do their best to make this scheme work successfully for the benefit of those whom it is designed to assist.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: I shall watch with very great interest this experiment by which the State gives this trust to both branches of the legal profession. I may be optimistic, but I hope some day to hear that the Miners' Federation will be given a similar trust in connection with the nations' coal resources. I am extremely interested in the experiment. This is a Measure which will be welcomed throughout the country for the simple reason that people of small means, or of no means at all, will at last have an opportunity of resisting injustice which they have had to accept because they lacked the means with which to defend themselves.
  I hope that the regulations will be framed wisely and after full consultation

  1377
  with those voluntary organisations which have done much to help people who could not protect themselves. I refer particularly to the trade unions, which have done much good work in this connection. I am sceptical whether the local committees are sufficient in number for the task they will have to perform. It is a matter of experiment, and I have no doubt that it can be adjusted in the light of experience. However, I should like to see the closest relationship developed between the local committees and the voluntary organisations, particularly the trade unions, with their local offices, because they know in this connection that quick action is the essence of protection, particularly in cases of accident.
  I wish the Measure success. I hope that those responsible for the regulations will always be ready to listen to those with suggestions to make for improvement, and I shall watch how the legal profession responds to this trust. I hope that this precedent may be extended so that some day the nation will not be suspicious and jealous about the prerogative exercised by trade unions and trade unionists.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: I only want to add three or four sentences to what has been said. Like other hon. Members, I wish this Bill success, and I believe it will attain it. One of the things which will give it success is the fact that the Government and those responsible for it can count on the loyal co-operation of the members of all branches of the legal profession, an absolute essential for the success of a scheme of this kind. For the profession, it is perhaps, to some extent, a leap in the dark, perhaps more a leap in the dark than people yet realise. But although that is known by members of the profession—and I speak now not so much as a Member of this House, but as a working member of the junior Bar—I know and can testify to the fact that there is no member of the Bar or of the other branches of the profession who will not do his best to see that this scheme wins the success that is hoped for it.
  There are dangers. I hope that no one will ever come to think that by the introduction of schemes of this kind litigation can ever be made a good thing. It is, in its nature, an evil and a concession which we make to the follies and wickedness of mankind. It can never be anything
  1378
  else. It can never be other than something which we should wish to avoid, even though we make the courts open to rich and poor alike, paint the doors bright and, as the Attorney-General said in his speech tonight, encourage plenty of people to come in. I hope as few people as possible will come in, but I hope that those who do come in will get justice.
  It is not only important to realise that litigation is an evil; it is also important to realise that neither speed, nor cheapness nor universality are the ultimate ends of litigation. The ultimate end is justice and the only foundation upon which a scheme of this kind, or any other scheme for the improvement of litigation, can be founded is the knowledge that justice, when it comes, will be the best and nearest approach to the truth and to the right assessment of liability that human wisdom and skill can give. Nothing short of that will give prestige or respect to a system of litigation or dispensation of justice in any country.
  9.12 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not detract from the excellence of this Bill when I describe it as a skeleton Bill. I do so because it provides a framework around which we all hope, I think, to build up a legal aid service which will give satisfaction to those of our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in need of the facilities which are to be provided.
  In this connection, an important responsibility will devolve in the initial stage upon those who are entrusted with the task of devising the regulations under which this scheme will operate. Those regulations will be of the utmost importance because they will affect the whole tone and atmosphere of the scheme which is contemplated under this Bill. The local committees will have a particular responsibility, especially the certifying committees. Before these certifying committees will appear the applicants for legal aid. I trust that, as the first contact between the applicant and the legal aid scheme will be the certifying committee, very great pains will be taken by those who sit on the certifying committee to make the applicant feel at home and not to subject him to any unnecessary strain or unnecessary examination. I feel we all want to avoid a situation in which

  1379
  the applicant feels that he or she has, in the first instance, to undergo some sort of trial in the case before the certifying committee and then to undergo a trial before the particular court in which his or her case will ultimately be heard.
  Perhaps I may, at this juncture, remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the very excellent work which hitherto has been done by the poor persons' committee of the London Law Society. This Committee has been operating for very many years and it has been able to dispense legal aid on the most extensive scale without the necessity of having the applicants appear before it at all. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that certificates were granted in very many cases by the London poor persons committee without the committee seeing the applicant in person at all. I hope that this particular form of administration will, as far as circumstances permit, be followed also by the certifying committees that are to operate under the new legal aid scheme.
  One further point to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, and which I mentioned on Second Reading, is that this scheme owes something to the experience that was gained in the Services' legal aid scheme, which was the first attempt on a large scale to provide legal aid to a very diverse and numerous section of the community. I trust that those persons who have voluntarily stayed on in the Forces for the purpose of continuing the Services' legal aid scheme until this new scheme comes into effect will not have their claims overlooked when it comes to filling the various paid appointments which will have to be filled under this scheme when it is put into effect. The date of the implementation of this scheme we do not know. That is left, so far as the civil side is concerned, to the Lord Chancellor who will, by Statutory Instrument, appoint the date of the official commencement, and, so far as the criminal side is concerned, to the Home Secretary, who will appoint the date by Statutory Instrument.
  I hope that that date will not long be delayed. I know that considerable preparations have already been made to narrow the gap between the passing of the Bill and the actual implementation of the legal aid scheme. It is rather a shock to
  1380
  me to learn from the rather bulky correspondence I have been having lately that very many people do not know yet that the legal aid scheme has been under consideration and is likely to be put into operation in the not-too-distant future. I would ask the authorities concerned in the matter to make quite sure that the widest possible publicity is given to the date on which this scheme is put into effect. It is quite suprising how many many people do not know even that the Legal Aid and Advice Bill has been under discussion at all in this House.
  I should like, in conclusion, to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the successful accomplishment of his labours in this regard, and to express the hope that when he looks back on his record of achievement in this Parliament he will—as I think and hope he may—place fairly high upon the list the putting into effect of this Legal Aid and Advice Bill.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I feel that this House can seldom have given any ex-Lord Chancellor such a happy birthday present as we are giving tonight to the right hon. and learned Lord Simon; for it is exactly five years to the day since he appointed the Committee which came to be known as the Rushcliffe Committee, and it really is a very great tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, to its members, to the legal societies that set about building up the framework of this Bill, and, ultimately, to the Government as well as to the Opposition and all Members of this House, that within a period of five years from the day of the appointment of that Committee the Bill passes its Third Reading in this House. A good deal has already been said about the general contents of the Bill to which I thought I myself might refer. Consequently the House will be saved the time and the trouble of listening to it again.
  I desire to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General some points in connection with the Third Schedule to the Bill. I do not propose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to fall into the trap of enabling you to call me to Order by making referance to the Amendment which I had down for the Report stage to that Schedule and which was not called. I desire to make some reference

  1381
  to the actual contents of the Schedule which deal particularly with the remuneration of lawyers who are operating this scheme. Needless to say, what I shall say emanates solely from myself and I have no idea whatsoever whether my views will be in conflict with the opinions of the Law Society or whether they might share them.
  The point which I particularly want to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General is with regard to the right of the solicitor to recover, in circumstances in which it is applicable, 85 per cent. of the costs, taxed upon a solicitor and client basis as payable out of a common fund. I do not want to go deeply into this matter but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made clear upstairs, there is a great number of scales of costs to which the law is subjected. For the purposes of ordinary litigation in the High Court there are four scales. They can roughly be described as; the solicitor and own client scale; the solicitor and client scale when costs are being paid out of a common fund; the solicitor and client scale: and the party and party scale.
  If I may put those scales into language which the House will understand, they may be translated in this way: Those various scales give to the solicitor remuneration upon the following basis: the party and party scale gives him his bread; the solicitor and client scale gives him bread and scrape; the solicitor and client scale when paid out of a common fund gives him bread and butter; the solicitor and own client scale gives him bread, butter and jam. [An HON. MEMBER: "And caviare."] The scale which is applicable under the Bill is the solicitor and client scale when paid out of a common fund, which I have described as bread and butter scale.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Both subsidised.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not desire to suggest that the legal profession should get any greater benefit from the costs than is proposed under the Bill. The House knows that they are getting only 85 per cent. of that scale, which was the figure proposed by the Rushcliffe Committee. In the days when the Rushcliffe Committee reported—this is worth observing because it was more than four years ago, in the early part of 1945—to the effect that 85 per cent. of the scale
  1382
  represented about one half of the actual profit which the solicitor would otherwise get, they were working upon the assumption that, on a total bill of costs paid to a solicitor, the overhead expenses for wages, stationery, rent, and so forth, absorbed approximately 70 per cent. Upwards of four years have passed since that time and the rate of overhead expenses has increased very considerably indeed. Now it is not unreasonable to assume that the overhead expenses absorb about 80 per cent. of a bill. Consequently the remuneration proposed to the solicitor cannot be considered excessive being, roughly speaking, a five per cent. rate of profit on the whole of the bill submitted.
  So I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, before the Bill goes to another place, whether this rather complicated basis of taxation which, after all, emanates mostly from the Chancery Division and is not in common practice on the King's Bench side—the taxation of the cost as between solicitor and client paid out of a common fund—will not impose upon solicitors, particularly in the country, a rather greater burden that it is worth. To begin with, it may be that they are not familiar, or their staffs are not familiar, with the technicalities of the basis of the taxation and that they have to employ outside assistance which is costly.
  In any event it will generally be necessary for them to prepare two bills of costs; first, the party and party scale for taxation itself in connection with the litigation; secondly, the solicitor and client scale bill for submission for the recovery of their own costs. That will involve a substantial amount of additional work. In addition to the actual preparation of the bill it may well be that the copying of the bill alone will occupy a typist a day and a half. It may well be that the occupation of that time, together with the possible delay in getting bills on that scale taxed or assessed, may make the solicitor feel that it would be better to sacrifice the slight benefit which he gets from that scale at 85 per cent. and resort solely to the ordinary party and party scale with much less complication. May I, therefore, leave this thought with the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his consideration: whether or not it might not be

  1383
  feasible to give the solicitor the option of choosing which of these alternatives he prefers.
  With those remarks I should like to join with my hon. and right hon. Friends in their commendation of the Bill, and particularly of the societies who have put in such a tremendous amount of work and such a high degree of skill in order to build up this framework which we shall now proceed to implement through the legal profession.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Successive Parliaments and all parties over the last 50 years have been endeavouring to build up a wall of security for the common man. It started in 1897 with protection against the hazard of accidents at work. That was the Workmen's Compensation Act, and then came various other Acts to protect him against the hazard of unemployment. In this Parliament we have protected him against the hazard of sickness, but the one hazard against which he has not been protected to any degree in the past has been the hazard of needing the services of the law.
  This Measure will not affect such a large number of people as those who are afflicted by sickness or even unemployment. Anyone with imaginative sympathy and anyone who has played any part in assisting in the social services, particularly in large towns, will know that the social worker was on many occasions completely frustrated by the man or woman seeking his aid on a legal problem. In the big cities there were poor men's lawyers who could give advice, but they were lamentably short of money and legal help, and on most occasions they were unable to give the help and succour the little man needed.
  I welcome the Bill. I am glad that the Government have found time to add this further cornerstone to the security of the little man. It is a great Measure of reform and it ought to be recognised as such. This is not a small matter. Free legal aid has been available in the criminal courts, and on the whole it has been satisfactory, although this Bill improves it; but unfortunately on the civil side there has not been that aid for the man who could not afford the benefits of legal advice and legal help, particularly
  1384
  in the courts. The poor man's lawyer in the big cities could give advice, but in most of the countryside and most of the small towns the man went unaided because he could not afford legal advice. I am glad that by this Measure that kind of thing will cease to happen and that anybody who reasonably requires the help of the law will be able to secure it.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Price-White: I am in rather a difficulty in following the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) who has mentioned a further "cornerstone" of the Bill. I rather gathered that the Bill, judging by its welcome, had already achieved four cornerstones, and therefore I did not anticipate our being able to lay a fifth or sixth. I feel that this is really an unusual Parliamentary occasion. There is almost balm breathing over the benches.
  While I am not prepared to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) in the technicalities into which he entered, I should like to say that the scales of remuneration proposed by the Bill are adequate and in many respects represent a practical expression of the old saying:
  "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
  This Bill must inevitably have come along. It is built upon something which has been rather forgotten not only tonight but throughout the proceedings on the Bill, and that is the tremendous amount of work done by both branches of the profession to help very many men and women under the existing poor persons' procedure. A great deal of very noble legal and social work has been done under that procedure, but it was not wide enough, and I feel—I am certain that the Attorney-General will agree with me—that the Bill at last brings within the purview of possibility and practicability everything that should be available to the unfortunate litigant.
  I could not help feeling that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who has unfortunately left the House, rather set the seal on the Bill, in a speech which for him, was in utterance, unusually equable. However, it must not be forgotten that whatever work has been done within this Chamber or upstairs, tremendous work towards the achieve-

  1385
  ment of getting this Bill on the Statute Book has been done by those outside the House who unfortunately must remain unnamed, that is, those within the Bar Society and the Law Society. A tremendous amount of work has been done and a tremendous amount of contact has been achieved with those whom the Bill will affect. It is through those efforts that this Bill should prove a success.
  I would issue this warning. The tonsorially-perfect Member for Oxford warned against litigation. Litigation is an evil thing. [Laughter.] Yes, litigation is an evil thing. We are told that in the perfect State, into which we are about to emerge if we are not there already, it will be impossible; that in the perfect social sphere litigation disappears. But let it not be thought for one moment that the Bill will be followed by a tremendous upsurge of litigation—I do not believe it; I think and hope that it will result in no greater amount of litigation than exists now.
  In passing this Bill through its final stage in this Chamber, let us not think that we have tied the knots, put down the amulet and affixed the seal. It is a beginning, an experiment; we must not think it is the answer. It is an experiment to produce what those who have to seek litigation should have—the assurance that they can seek that recourse with no handicap and with the assistance which will be generously and most ably afforded to them by both branches of the profession and by all those who serve on the various committees. But let us hope that, whatever may be the results, it will not bring about more litigation than we have now, because what we have now is sometimes more than we can stomach.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I should like to join briefly in the hearty welcome which has been given to the Bill. I could not let this occasion pass without referring to the very kind reference by the Attorney-General to the Law Society. In my constituency the branch of the Law Society—the Merthyr and Aberdare Law Society—have rendered an enormous service, particularly in the inter-war years, when for 15 years the overwhelming proportion of our men were unemployed. In those days they rendered service to
  1386
  hundreds of people and carried on their splendid work without a break. I shall never forget the small pride I felt in this House when on one occasion in the years immediately before the war the Home Secretary paid an unsolicited tribute to those splendid members of the legal profession who gave their services so ungrudgingly to the people who were so badly in need of them. Very rarely does a person who is not a member of the legal profession ever pay a compliment to that profession, but I cannot let this occasion pass without paying whatever tribute I can, and with all sincerity, to those splendid men who served our people during those long, dark, lean years.
  As a supporter of the Government I take considerable pride that the present Government have at long last come along to place upon the Statute Book a Measure that may protect the poor man when litigation is thrust upon him. There can be no shadow of doubt that this is a Measure for which people in such areas as mine will feel very grateful, as it provides a sound foundation for a structure which, I hope, will be built upon it as occasion calls.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to say a couple of pleasant words on the Third Reading of this Bill. This is a Bill to enable people to get into court. I do not require aid for that; I could do with aid to keep out of court. Nevertheless, the Bill will have its values because we have to face the fact that, under this deplorable system of legal robbery of man by man, litigation is a necessity and legal aid will be required. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) set before us the very high standard which will be maintained by the legal fraternity. The hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White) and others weighed in and associated themselves with the hon. Member for Oxford. We all have hopes that the lawyers will rise to this high eminence set before them, but I would remind the hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs of what Daniel Quilp had to say when Samson Brass asked for a glass of water:
  "Water for a lawyer? Molten metal for a lawyer."
  I think the Bill will be very useful and I am certain that lawyers, with all their limitations—which are manifold—will

  1387
  try to do a good job for those who have to seek their assistance.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: The interest taken in this Bill by both hon. Members of the Communist Party will, we hope, convert them to the idea that the rights of the individual are important and should be upheld in all cases. The debates on this Bill seem to prove that our discussions proceed most smoothly when carried out by lawyers and when lawyers are spending a great deal of time patting each other on the back. It was certainly a very pleasant contrast to occasions when doctors who are Members of this House have a go at each other.
  It would be a mistake if it were to go out from this House that in this Bill we have a simple form of redress for all people who have rights to assert and are of modest means. The truth is that the scheme envisaged by the Bill, which I fully support as a useful social reform, is divided into three parts, for which there are three different sets of fairly complicated regulations, which it will not be easy for the members of the Law Society to explain to the public in pamphlets. There are three separate rules in regard to contributions and three separate means tests. So we should not give people the impression that they have only to attend at a legal advice centre and say that they have limited means and all will be well. As we who have had to study the Bill know, the matter is fairly complicated. In the first stage it will not be too difficult and anyone wanting legal advice will go to the centre and take reasonable steps to satisfy the solicitor there that he is not a person of great means and, presumably, will be asked to bang half a crown on the table and, provided he is not too well dressed, he will get the advice straight away. But when we get to the next two stages we find that people will have to go through a most complicated procedure. It is as well that they should at this very early stage be warned about it.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) claimed this Bill as a great triumph for his party. It should be recorded once more, as it has already been recorded earlier tonight, perhaps
  1388
  when the hon. Member was not present, that the work without which this Bill would have been impossible was begun by a National Liberal Lord Chancellor some five years ago. That is a fact which should not be forgotten. Also, we must bear in mind that great as has been the very valuable work which has gone on during the past five years, to which all parties and both branches of the legal profession have contributed, it is only a beginning and will prove to have been comparatively easy compared with the very difficult practical work which now faces the Law Society in getting this scheme on to its feet and working properly.
  The hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) appeared to think that this Bill was adding to the already extensive list of human rights. He seemed to see that the Bill was granting freedom from fear of being fleeced by lawyers. But lawyers have been of value in many ways which are frequently not recognised. They were recognised by the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) when speaking about the work of the trade unions. I should like to follow up one or two of his remarks. The trade unions, whose work in dealing with the claims of their members is to be praised, as is also the very large amount of help given by both branches of the legal profession for very little remuneration, will have to be radically altered when this Bill becomes law and the operation of its provisions gets under way. It is not for me to venture to say what the policy of the trade unions will be but the success of this scheme will to some extent be measured by the way in which the trade unions decide to make use of the scheme and thereby perhaps save their funds some money and reduce to some extent the contributions from their members. This will mean a big departure from trade union practice, and it will be very interesting indeed to see which way it goes.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: I would not like it to be thought that I suggested that lawyers fleeced their clients. I neither said nor suggested anything of the kind.
  Mr. Renton: I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I misunderstood his speech, but to me he seemed clearly to give that impression.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I wish to make only one observation in connection with Part II of the Bill, which deals with legal aid in criminal cases. That is the part of the Bill which will have the greatest impact upon the common man. It is the part of the Bill which has been least discussed in this House. It certainly affects the rights of the common man so far as his liberty is concerned far more than does any other part of this Bill. I have some doubts as to the adequacy of that part of the Bill in dealing with legal aid in criminal cases because the existing procedure for the provision of legal aid is only altered in certain small particulars. The discretion which is to be exercised in the giving of legal aid is to be exercised by precisely the same people as before, although the machinery is slightly different.
  Under Clause 17 the guiding principles in accordance with which that discretion must be exercised are different, but that discretion is still vested in the same people who have previously exercised it. How that discretion is to be exercised will determine the success of that Part of the Bill. It is a matter which has already been observed by many people that the discretion as it has been exercised under the existing regulations has been exercised in such a way as to give legal aid in only a comparative minority of cases. I hope that magistrates will exercise their discretion under this Clause in the spirit which I believe is intended. I hope the Government will keep an eye on the administration of this Clause, which can make a very valuable contribution to the effectiveness of the Bill. I wish to add my voice in commending the Bill as an important addition to our whole system and structure of social service in this country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

COLONIAL LOANS [MONEY] [No. 2]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Mrs. PATON in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Treasury to guarantee certain loans by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the Governments of colonial territories, it is expedient to authoris—

(a) the charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling a guarantee of any charges in respect of any such loan as well as of the principal thereof and interest thereon;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by way of the repayment of any sums so issued."—[Mr. Rees-Williams.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL

  Clause 2.—(DIRECTIONS BY MINISTER TO BOARDS AS RESPECTS CERTAIN MATTERS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 27, at end insert:
  "Provided that, except with the consent of the board, the Minister shall not vary or add to any directions under paragraph (b) of this subsection where, in his opinion, the need for the variation or addition arose from circumstances not obtaining at the date when the directions were given."
  9.54 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make it more clear that the power as in Clause 2 (5, b) is only intended to enable the Minister to remedy a defect in the original direction.
  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: We had a considerable discussion in this House on this point and we con-

  1391
  sider that this Amendment definitely improves the Bill. I wish to express our agreement with it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 3.—(SAVING FOR AND AMENDMENTS OF, S. 9 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5, leave out lines 1 to 18, and insert:
  "(2) So much of subsection (4) of the last preceding section as requires the Minister to publish the conclusions of a committee of investigation shall apply in relation to reports of a committee of investigation under the said section nine as it applies in relation to reports under the last preceding section.
  (3) Subsection (5) of the last preceding section, and, so far as concerns orders under the said subsection (5), subsection (6) of the last preceding section, shall apply in relation to orders under paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of the said section nine as they apply in relation to orders under subsection (2) of the last preceding section."
  Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is in accordance with a promise made in this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 5.—(THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 38, leave out "the chairman of."
  Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This again is in fulfilment of a promise made.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for giving financial assistance to persons engaged in or desiring to engage in the sea-fishing industry, for regulating the crew accommodation provided in fishing boats, and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any sums required by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State concerned with the sea-
1392
fishing industry in Scotland for the making of loans, not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds, to such persons as aforesaid, in connection with the acquisition, improvement and reconditioning of boats, being loans made within a period not exceeding fifteen years beginning with the date of the passing of the said Act;

(ii) of expenses incurred by any Minister under the said Act;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by any Minister by way of interest on any loan made under the said Act or repayment of the principal thereof, or by way of fees paid under the said Act or any regulations made thereunder."

Resolution agreed to.

MEAT (RETAIL PRICES)
9.55 p.m.
Mr. Piratin: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th April, 1949, entitled the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 778), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled."
At the same time it might be convenient to discuss the two orders, Nos. 783 and 782.
Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, it would be convenient to take the first three Prayers together. They all deal with meat. The other two are separate.
Mr. Solley: On a point of Order. Would it not be convenient, while discussing the question of the increases in the price of meat, to deal with the increases the price of butter and cheese? It might be desirable to make some comment about the general rates of increase in the price of these foods in canteens. It would be rather difficult merely to give in the first Debate examples of increases in meat prices in canteens, and then subsequently to repeat a similar speech referring to butter and to cheese.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can mix up meat, butter and cheese That would make the matter too complicated.
Mr. Piratin: The effect of these orders is that Order No. 778 increases the maximum retail prices of meat and edible offal by an average of 4d. a lb. Order No. 783 extends these increases to Northern Ireland. I regret that Members from the Northern Irish counties are not present to take an interest in this matter.

1393
[HON. MEMBERS: "There is one."] He is not sitting in his usual place then. Order 782 increases the maximum price of nearly all canned meats by 4d. a 1b. These orders follow from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget on 6th April. The reasons put forward for making these increases are:—
"… that the subsidies should not exceed £465 million in the current year."
The Chancellor further said:
"… whatever happens to prices, we must not allow them to rise above that level.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2094.]
Hence, Sir, this House and the public can anticipate that there may be further increases in the price of meat and, for that matter, in the price of other foods if the cost of food, especially that which is imported, should rise. For this reason this matter is of very great interest to the House and the country. According to the Chancellor the financial saving in the current year would be £17 million. I think it is right to say that such a saving is really placing a burden—
Mr. Speaker: The saving has nothing to do with the order. We must stick to the order, which is merely putting up the price of meat by 4d.
Mr. Piratin: I realise how difficult it is to keep within the Rules of Order, especially in view of the fact that this Prayer arises not from any announcement made by the Ministry of Food but from an announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, we must base our points of view on the statement made a few weeks ago in the Budget Debate. I am trying to give the reasons why these orders have been introduced.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unduly but, of course, that has been decided. The Finance Bill has been given a Second Reading, and that is a matter of policy which is not discussable under these orders.
Mr. Piratin: Some of the arguments which have been advanced in support of these increases were put forward in the course of other Debates in the House, and in the Press and elsewhere. First, it has been argued that they only amount to 1s. 4d. per week for the average family. I do not want any misunderstanding with the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary
1394
Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I should like to say that that figure does not apply to meat alone. No one has worked out the figure for meat alone. What has been worked out is the figure for the average family for the several articles mentioned in these orders. I do not want to distort the figures, but to make plain what is the point with which I am dealing. It has been argued that the whole increase is nearly 1s. 4d. for the average family. It was further argued and I think the Economic Secretary himself argued, that after all it equals only one and a half points increase in the retail prices index. The Financial Secretary said it was two points, but be that as it may.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Under two points.
Mr. Piratin: Well, under two points, and that was one of the expressions used to justify this increase. The further point was made by a lady Member of this House that, to balance this, we have to take into consideration the fact that other foodstuffs have declined in price.
So far as the first two points are concerned, namely, the low increase and the fact of only a small index figure increase, I suggest that such observations are not worthy of a Labour Front Bench, for they are apt to be a little bureaucratic and rather remote from the lower-paid workers. I do not think it would be possible for the Economic Secretary to go to an old age pensioner, who would be affected by this increase as much as anyone else, and say to him "It is only only one and a half points rise on the retail price index or only 1s. 4d. for the average family." I would also suggest to the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann), who is not present now, in regard to her remark that other foodstuffs had declined in price to balance this increase, that the retail price index figure which was last quoted in November, 1948, as 109, took into consideration any reductions in other food prices, and that, therefore, such an argument is not really valid. I know that I am getting rather wide of the orders, Mr. Speaker; I know it is very delicate, but I am doing my best. The Financial Secretary admits that it is a rise of nearly two points in the index figure. I would go further and say that not only is this increase not justifiable in any circum-

1395
stances, but that it is indeed contrary to Government policy, and here I would like to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a Question on 2nd May, when he was asked about his statement in 1948 on personal incomes. The Prime Minister said:
"The White Paper of February, 1948, was based on certain principles—"
and the second of these, according to the Prime Minister was:
"(2) that every effort should be made to reduce prices wherever possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 645.]
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a little bit out of Order. These were no doubt excellent arguments on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but that stage has been passed, and they are not in Order on a Prayer which, after all, is merely devoted to the increase in the price of meat and meat products, and nothing else.
Mr. Piratin: I see the point of Order, but may I respectfully point out to you, Sir, that, as you will recall, a handful of us voted against the Budget as a whole. So far as the Finance Bill is concerned, this particular question did not come up and, therefore, in a way—
Mr. Speaker: It could have come up on the Finance Bill; there was nothing to stop it. It was exempted Business, and anybody could have talked until one, two, three or even four o'clock in the morning. The fault there lies with the hon. Gentleman for not raising it. We must not have a Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill on this particular Prayer.
Mr. Piratin: I will confine myself to the point I was developing. Concerning the increase of 1s. 4d., there was a further development, and I hope the hon. Lady who is to reply will have this in mind. Not only have those prices been raised so that the housewife has to pay extra when she buys her meat, cheese, and so on, but there have been extensions of this, particularly in factory canteens. Some of the recent prices which have been raised in canteens are as follows. In the docks, meat pies have been raised from 4d. to 5d., and sandwiches from 6d. to 8d.; in factory canteens, the main dish has been raised by 1d., a dessert by
1396
1d., and sandwiches and rolls by a halfpenny. A campaign is developing in the docks and factories to boycott certain goods in the canteens while these increases persist. If such is the feeling among industrial workers who need all the food they can get, I would say that is an answer to those who say, "What is 1s. 4d.?"
There is this point which I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration, because it was her senior, the Minister of Food, who, on 9th May, answered a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) as to what would be the effect of these increases on restaurant meals. He said:
"The average cost of a restaurant meal will be increased on only one-eighth of a penny by these changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th May, 1949; Vol. 464. c. 1484.]
Of course, one-eighth of a penny is just a fantastic figure, and has no meaning in practice. I have just given examples of prices in canteens. Restaurants may not increase their charges except by permission of the Minister of Food, but canteens can and have done so, and these increases have been immediately reflected, not in terms of one-eighth of a penny, but in terms of 2d. or 3d. a meal, which means, roughly, about 2s. in the course of a week. That is at least 16 times what the Minister said would be the increase on restaurant meals. That means that the industrial worker is paying these increases twice over. He is paying once when his wife has to pay the extra for these food items, and again when he has his meals in the canteen, where he has to pay these relatively exorbitant additions for his meals.
I think that in raising this matter, difficult as it has been, and generous as you have been to me, Mr. Speaker, because I realise how difficult it is, we are expressing the desire of almost every section of the Labour movement. It is reported in today's Press that the General Council of the T.U.C. were discussing this very matter yesterday, and we know how much they feel about this, and how much other trade unions feel on the matter. The Co-operative movement has expressed, both before and since these increases, their objection to them. So far as the trade unions are concerned, I think that one quotation would be most apt,

1397
for it is a food trade union—the bakers' union—which has been meeting in conference at Blackpool over the weekend. In his presidential address, the president of that trade union said:
"What sort of psychology is it that reduces the taxation on light wines and beer whilst increasing the price of food?"
May I say, in passing, that I do not believe that the Minister of Food should take complete responsibility for this, and that all the Ministers concerned should bear that fact in mind. I will quote from a pamphlet which Professor G. D. H. Cole—with whom I disagree in many respects—recently wrote for the Fabian Society as a commentary on Labour's own policy. In it he says that he cannot stomach a Budget which simultaneously makes concessions to capitalism and reduces, even by a little, the working-class standard of life. On those words, Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude. I have had half an eye on the Chair all the time.
I hope that the Government will take this opportunity, which we are presenting to them on a platter tonight, of reducing this injustice to the working class. It is clear that a mistake has been made for the mass of the working class, and certainly all the organisations of the working class are opposed to these increases which the Government have introduced, and arising from which further increases may be anticipated. As Professor Cole himself described them, these are the salt of the earth; and these are the people the Government should consider.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I beg to second the Motion.
I had prepared what I believed was going to be a very great speech on this question, but I do not see much possibility of delivering it. I want to support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)—all that was in Order and all that was out of Order—in connection with this increase in meat prices. It is a very serious matter for very many of the poorer workers; make no mistake about that. I know that the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary were not responsible for the fact that an order had to be issued, although they themselves issued it. I would remind them that my right hon. Friend the
1398
Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who, like myself, is an engineer, has on occasion been put in the situation where the boss has sad "do this" and "do that." We know what he said. There is always a point where resistance should be made to orders that are not in the interest of the people of the country.
Here we have a situation where, in order to justify this increase in meat, the Minister of Food issued a statement giving statistics to show that the workers are now getting a bigger share of the national cake. I am quite certain that the Economic Secretary supplied those statistics. Then Johnnie Gollan, in the "Daily Worker," corrected these statistics in a very fine article. Perhaps it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who issued the statement, not the Minister. Then the Chancellor came to the House during the proceedings on the Finance Bill and accepted Johnnie Gollan's version of the statistics, supplying them in the House. Johnnie Gollan is a member of the Communist Party and a good lad he is, too. The statistics given to justify this increase in meat were fake and fraudulent statistics.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was not an increase in meat. The hon. Member means an increase in the price.
Mr. Gallacher: The statistics to justify the increase in the price of meat were fake and fraudulent statistics. Yet a pamphlet is published about the bigger share which the workers are receiving of the national cake. Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Lady, by way of illustration, that in 1937 a Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to this House supplied with good information and proposed a National Defence Contribution which was one of the most revolutionary proposals ever to come before the House. Out of 600 Members I was the only Member to support him. There was such a furore in the city and the country that he had to withdraw the proposals. Some fellow travellers in the Treasury had supplied him with the proposals and he came down to the House with them.
This increase cannot be justified and the Parliamentary Secretary must have a consultation with the Minister to see if it is not possible to make a stand against

1399
the dictator who forces upon them the responsibility of issuing this order. Let us take the question of railwaymen. There has been a lot of talk about them and the low wages they are receiving. This increase in meat prices will bear exceptionally heavily on the railwaymen. There is the question of the plight of the old age pensioners, as my hon. Friend said, and there is the question of the trouble in the canteens.
I remember that the Leader of the House made a speech some time ago in which he said that if the Tories came to power there would be industrial trouble in this country, but that that was not a threat. If these extra meat prices are kept on there is going to be industrial trouble in this country—and that is not a threat. Of course, the same applies to the cheese and butter prices, and what we say about the meat price applies to the other prices, for we do not want to make speeches on the other orders affecting the other foods. We want to bring the principle home that the Minister of Food and his Parliamentary Secretary should make a stand against the issuing of such orders.
I am not quite certain myself that the responsibility for the orders rests entirely with the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary, who have been doing a very good job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Despite all the snarls that have come from the other side of the House and all the fictions about the Housewives' League, they have been doing a really good job. Everybody recognises that they have been doing a good job. I do not understand why, when they are doing a good job, they should be forced into this situation. It is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for most of the trouble. The right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is an innocent party. It is the Economic Secretary sitting on her left, to whom we cannot address ourselves, who is the villain of the piece; yet we have to address ourselves to the right hon. Lady. That is an entirely unfair situation for the right hon. Lady, and an entirely unfair situation for this House. I say that the right hon. Lady should now tell the House that she and the Minister regret very much that they accepted
1400
dictation which they knew was wrong, and that they will withdraw these orders and defy those responsible for causing the orders to be made.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was very clear in the speeches of both the mover and seconder of this Prayer that the one thing which they did not wish to discuss was the orders themselves. They obviously desired to use them as a peg on which to hang their arguments, which might, perhaps, have been more appropriately addressed to the House on the Finance Bill.
Mr. Gallacher: I would hang the hon. Member if I got the chance.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no doubt at all that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would, if he had the opportunity, carry out that threat. It is his whole mentality, and his whole approach to public affairs, that he would like to use violence upon his political opponents and to "liquidate" the Opposition—as it is put in other countries. I must confess that I am delighted that he has put that on record. I hope none the less that if he wants to introduce the full trimmings of hanging, instead of following that line—
Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Prayer and the order, and not to this tomfoolery.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The sentence which I had commenced, and which I regret, from the grammatical point of view, was somewhat prolonged, was intended to end by saying that despite what had been said I proposed to address myself to the order. And that I will, therefore, now do. I think it is right that these orders should be debated. They are of major importance to the people of this country, and, to my mind, are things which should be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, and not left merely to the discretion of Ministers using their powers of delegated legislation.
In the first and principal order, No. 778, the schedule is extremely interesting. That is the part, as hon. Members who have the order before them will appreciate, which sets out with a wealth of detail the prices for a large number

1401
of different sorts of meat, most of which I have not seen for 10 years. The reading of the schedule to this order should not be recommended to hon. Members who are apt to feel acutely the pangs of hunger. The reading of it certainly causes my own gastric juices to ferment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the order he will see specified such items as:
"rump steak and fillet steak … rump with fillet, whole … sirloin and wing rib … loin, chump and leg chop."
I take it, from the fact that those words appear in the order, that the articles to which they refer sometimes appear in this country. I should very much like to know where. The price increases are set out in great detail here, but it is a little difficult to see whether they have been applied proportionately to the different items or not. I am sure that the right hon. Lady apprehends the point, and I would like her to deal with it. Have the price increases been made in exact proportion to the previously existing prices and simply a certain proportion, with due allowance for fractions of a penny, added? Or has some discrimination been used—I think it has—and a greater increase made on the more expensive items? That is a matter on which the House should be informed and I shall be grateful if the right hon. Lady would inform us.
There is a further point which should be before the House in considering this matter. The Prayer was moved solely on the basis that the increases of price affected by the order was the result of certain financial decisions. It is right that it should be made clear that there is another factor in these prices, and that is the method used for the purchase of the meat itself. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not seek to avail herself of the excuse held out to her by the hon. Member for West Fife, that the price increases are simply the result of financial decisions. I hope that she will face the question whether or not her own purchasing mechanism is really obtaining for the people of this country at a fair and reasonable price the meat which it does obtain. However much it may be hidden and disguised by subsidies, the fundamental matter is the price actually being paid in the first place by the Ministry of Food, for the meat which is brought into this country. I hope that she will address herself to that aspect of the matter.
1402
On the other two orders, which I understand in accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, are being discussed, there is only one point which I wish to raise. It is on Order 782, the meat products order. That order is signed, it appears, not by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, nor by the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but by a permanent official. I appreciate there may be circumstances in which the power of the Minister to make a statutory instrument must inevitably be delegated to permanent officials, but when we are dealing with matters of considerable public importance—in this respect at least I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife—it seems regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Parliamentary Secretary should put their signature to the order.
I cannot believe that one or other was not available to do it, and it seems to me to be rather more than a point of procedure when, using delegated powers of legislation, Ministers of the Crown or the Departments of which they are the head take decisions of substantial public importance. It seems to me more appropriate, and more in accordance with reasonable constitutional procedure, that they should not only take responsibility but appear to take responsibility for what they do by putting their own names to these orders. I hope the right hon. Lady will be able to satisfy the House when she replies to the Debate that there was some reason why a permanent official should be the person endorsing this most important order.
I have not tried to discuss the general background issues raised by the mover and seconder of this Prayer but, as these orders are as a result of their initiative now before the House, as they are orders of substantial public importance, it is right that they should be discussed and an answer obtained from Ministers of the Crown.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Solley: I rise to support the Prayers for the annulment of these three orders which increase the price of meat and meat products. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, owing to your Ruling, I am unable to deal with the background of this matter, without which it will be difficult to explain the fact that these increases are quite unnecessary and

1403
are, indeed, quite avoidable if certain lines of policy are pursued by the Government other than those now being pursued. However, I shall attempt to address myself to the allegation made by the Government that these increases are trifling, of no great seriousness, and place no difficulties in the way of the ordinary working-class family.
I would submit we are concerned not only with the increased price of meat to the housewife when she goes to the butcher's shop, but with the increase in prices which workers have to pay in canteens for meat meals and meat products. Indeed, these increases have resulted in higher prices in many industrial canteens which seem to bear no relationship to the increases to be found in these orders. In order to support this, I shall give certain figures for what is known as "A" category canteens, that is to say, canteens which serve the needs of heavy workers. The meat in these canteens now costs three-farthings per meal more than it did before these orders came into operation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose canteens?"] The canteens for heavy workers in general, not in particular firms. Of course the supply of meat remains the same.
In "B" category canteen, that is to say, the ordinary industrial canteen, the increase in price per meal is one-third of a penny. To get the picture in correct perspective, I ought to add that the increases in the prices of cheese, butter and margarine mean a combined increase in cost of less than one-thirteenth of a penny per meal; in other words, the actual increased cost to the caterer as a result of these charges is slightly over three-farthings per meal in "A" category canteens and less than a halfpenny in "B" category canteens.
These are increases which ought to flow if there were no profiteering. What is the position in reality? In my constituency there is considerable unrest in the dock area of Tilbury because of increased prices charged in the canteens. I have just received a letter from the chairman of one of the Transport and General Workers' Union Dockers' branches at Tilbury, in which he writes as follows, and I think the House would be interested to hear the point of view
1404
of the man on the spot, the man who has to pay, the man who has to suffer:
"I am sending to you and asking you to place before the Minister of Food the new tariff as compared with the old which the Port of London Authority have given notice they intend to bring into operation on May 22nd at Tilbury Docks (Mobile Canteens). I am also willing to send samples of food, but as these all would be waste by the time you received them, I will leave you to decide the necessity of this. Bearing in mind the fact that these are industrial canteens and of the quantity supplied in every unit of food, the men consider the prices are far too high and feelings are running rather high. I venture to suggest it is likely to lead to serious consequences."
I break off here to say that that is the considered view of the chairman of the leading dockers' branch in this country. The letter continues:
"At the present time the local Trades Council (that is, the Thurrock Trades Council) are investigating and taking up the case against prices under the old tariff, therefore, the new tariff has come as a bombshell."
The writer gives me the prices of the new tariff and compares them with the prices of the old. A meat sandwich under the new tariff costs 8d., and under the old tariff, 6d. Not a fraction of a penny, but a difference of 2d. on a sandwich to a docker. Half a meat sandwich costs 5d., but previously was not supplied at all. To complete the picture I should like to add a few items not directly relevant to this order. An egg now costs 8d., and previously cost 6d. Meat patties cost 5d. each, previously 3d. Meat rolls cost 3½d., previously 3d. Fish rolls cost 2½d., previously 2d. Bread and dripping costs 1½d. a slice, previously 1d. If any hon. Members think this is a small matter, all I can say is that I back the judgment of the dockers rather than the judgment of hon. Members who take an opposite view.
In the light of those facts, I asked myself when I considered this matter how I should vote tonight. I applied myself, as I hope other hon. Members applied themselves, to what I promised to do when I came before the electorate in 1945. I had no need to refresh my memory, because I have always kept that in mind. I remember that "Let Us Face the Future" says that the nation wants good food in plenty, wants a high and rising standard of living, and goes on to answer the question, "How can we do this?" by saying, "By suitable economies and price controls." Then it enunciated

1405
this very important statement, with which I and I am quite sure all Members on this side agree: "Food prices must be held." It is because I still believe in that policy that I shall vote with my hon. Friends in support of the policy which means that food prices must be held. Therefore, I shall vote against any suggestion to increase the price of meat.
10.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Although the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Gentleman for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) prayed against this order tonight and I was called to the House to answer them, I must confess I felt a little sorry for them when I heard you, Mr. Speaker, on so many occasions having to call them to Order. As it is very difficult on a Prayer to keep within the sharp confines of the order and as I am rather an authority in answering them, I feel a little guilty that I have not coached the hon. Gentlemen in what they might expect.
Mr. Gallacher: We are sorry for you, too.
Dr. Summerskill: On these Prayers one must confine oneself to the one particular point—why was this price increase imposed? Before I explain once more to the House what I feel my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained at this Box more than once, I should like to answer one or two points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked me a question, which I confess has never been asked me before, why was the name of the Permanent Secretary attached to a certain order? As I expect hon. Members know, my Department has to make a large number of orders each year and there is no significance in this. Either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, myself or the Permanent Secretary signs these orders, but I cannot say just why on that occasion the Permanent Secretary signed them. I can assure the hon. Member that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself was available—there might have been a committee meeting at the time—and it would not occur to a responsible official that his signature would be questioned.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate what the right hon. Lady says, but will she not agree that on an order of substantial importance—not one altering the points value of snoek—there should be the signature of the responsible Minister of the Crown?
Dr. Summerskill: The point has never been raised before in the House. It is only occasionally that this happens. It did happen in this case and I could not at this short notice explain where my right hon. Friend was or where I was at the particular moment that the Permanent, Secretary signed it. If the hon. Member cares I will find out and let him know.
The other point raised both by the mover and seconder of the Prayer was about the price of sandwiches and so on. I have been very concerned at this, but I want the House to understand that it is difficult for us to fix the maximum prices for sandwiches. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has just mentioned egg sandwiches. Certainly egg sandwiches are sold, there may be beef sandwiches sold also. Think of the number of different sandwiches sold at these stalls. It is impossible for my Department to be able to fix the maximum price and to ensure that there is no evasion of the order.
Mr. Piratin: While I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is important to fix the price for meat sandwiches; a meat sandwich might be as thin as a wafer. Is not the fact, as the hon. Member has said, that a sandwich may be 6d. one day and 8d. for exactly the same kind the next, something which the Minister could look into?
Dr. Summerskill: That shows how difficult it is to enforce the order. As I have said in this House on more than one occasion, when we make an order, we have to ensure not only that the order is just but that it is enforced. Perhaps the fact that customers have a sandwich one day, which is a little fuller than the one they have the subsequent day and for which they have to pay more, is a legitimate complaint. So far as my Department is concerned it is difficult to place the blame on particular persons and that is why there is room for complaint.
Mr. Solley: Would the right hon. Lady agree that if in fact this order did not come into operation and there was no in-

1407
creased price for meat, there would be no consequent increase in the price of any sandwich?
Dr. Summerskill: I am coming to that point. Next I have to explain to hon. Members once more why the increase in the price of meat was necessary. There is little I can usefully add to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget Debate. He mentioned that my Department, in its first forecast of the subsidies, calculated they would total £568 million, or £83 million more than the latest estimates of last year. This was partly due to higher prices both at home and abroad and partly to an anticipated increase in consumption. Further, it was agreed that the subsidy should be limited and we agreed that some £33 million should be found by H.M. Customs and Excise foregoing duties on tea and sugar and that a further £70 millions would be found by increasing the prices of meat, butter, cheese and margarine—sums which would otherwise have had to be added to the subsidies. These Orders are giving effect to the decision made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I wish to emphasise this point. The hon. Members who have prayed against this order have talked of the reduction in the level of subsidies, but there has been no reduction in the level of subsidies. It is important for the country to appreciate that. In fact, adding back the £33 millions saved on the duty reductions, to the £465 million provided this year would give a total of £498 millions, or £13 millions more than last year.
Mr. Piratin rose—
Dr. Summerskill: I have been very kind and have allowed the hon. Member to interrupt, but he must let me continue.
Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. The right hon. Lady is taking up a point which I never even raised, although I should have liked to raise it. As I did not raise the point the right hon. Lady need not bother to answer it.
Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has waved a paper in the air tonight, and, perhaps, in that paper it has been suggested that there have been reductions in the subsidies. It is only fair to the
1408
people of this country when a Prayer of this kind is moved in this House, that those who read the versions of the Debate in the newspapers should understand what the facts are. The hon. Member will agree with me that he was anxious to make this statement, but the Speaker prevented it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think I am in Order in telling the House why it was necessary to increase the price of meat. That was quite in Order.
It was necessary for my Department to increase the price of meat because it was our duty to put into effect the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and unless I explain to the House what the present position is in regard to the subsidies, it will be very difficult for them to understand why it was necessary for us to introduce the order. The hon. Member has mentioned butter and cheese. The increase in price of butter, cheese, meat and margarine could not have been—
Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with meat. I have not heard butter or cheese mentioned, except parenthetically.
Dr. Summerskill: I was listening very carefully and I think butter and cheese were mentioned by the hon. Member.
Mr. Piratin: If I may point it out, I did have an understanding with you, Mr. Speaker, not to mention—[Laughter.] I think this is quite in Order. I sought your guidance on how to direct myself in this matter and had an understanding in order to save the time of the House and hon. Members, not to deal in detail with later orders, but merely to mention them in passing. We have not discussed later orders in detail.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had not mentioned butter or cheese, and that is why I interrupted the right hon. Lady.
Dr. Summerskill: I was in process of saying that these increases could not have been unexpected, although hon. Members have appeared to be shocked at the suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that the prices of certain rationed foodstuffs should be increased; because I recall that in 1947 the Chancellor of the Duchy gave a warning to the House that the ceiling of subsidies would have to be fixed at £392 million. Later, the Chancellor of the

1409
Exchequer fixed them at about £400 million, but last year, the subsidies were allowed to rise to £485 million in support of the policy laid down in the White Paper on personal incomes, costs, and prices, and this increase was—
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. My hon. Friends put down a Motion on that very subject of wages, prices, and personal incomes, but we were not allowed to take it.
Mr. Speaker: I was a little alarmed at the way in which the right hon. Lady was making her defence. The policy really cannot be discussed now and if she wishes to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his policy, I must remind her that that is out of Order on discussion of these orders.
Dr. Summerskill: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend can defend himself, but it is a little difficult to prove why it is necessary to increase the price of these foodstuffs unless one explains that the subsidies have increased during the years and a time has been reached when it is necessary to call a halt. The Chancellor said, "The sky is not the limit," and he has had to say to my Department, "You must make orders so that there shall be a limit to the subsidies, by increasing the price of food."
Mr. Gallacher: If that is the answer why is not the Chancellor himself here instead of the right hon. Lady? It seems it concerns the Chancellor more than it concerns her.
Dr. Summerskill: No, it is proper that I should be here. It is proper for the Minister who makes the order, or whose Department is responsible for it, to answer a Prayer. I have answered many Prayers in this House, and some of the orders of my Department have been in greater or lesser degree related to the work of other Departments. After all, it is so customary for me to stand at this Box and answer Prayers that it is a pity to break the sequence.
The increase in these prices was such that poor persons and those in the lower incomes are not suffering as a result. I should like to quote certain figures; first of all, the retail price of meat on the average is 1s. 5d. a 1b, and the subsidy is 2½d. a 1b. Without the subsidy
1410
it would be 1s. 7½d. per lb. I must remind hon. Gentlemen that the price of meat in many other countries is much higher than our price without a subsidy. The retail price of cheese is 1s. 2d. per 1b, the subsidy is 1s. 1d. Before the war I think the price was about 10¾d. per 1b. The price of butter is 1s. 6d. and the subsidy is 1s. 5½d. Surely these prices prove to the House that my right hon. Friend has in mind the needs of the lowest income groups?
The time has come when the subsidies have risen and it has been necessary for him to say that the limit has been reached. Surely hon. Members behind me would not put us in the absurd position of having to tell housewives later on, when more food is available abroad, that we could not import this food which they needed because we were unable to afford the subsidy? It is for that reason that we have found it necessary to increase the price of certain foodstuffs in order to meet the increased cost.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does that mean that subsidies will go up as more food is imported?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Lady answer my question as to whether the percentage increases of different qualities of meat are the same?
Dr. Summerskill: We try to average it over all the different cuts the hon. Member mentioned.
10.52 p.m.
Mr. Kendall: The point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was, I thought, a good one but it does not seem to have been taken up by other hon. Members with the degree of gravity which the suggestion put forward indicated. Here we have some Prayers moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) concerning the cost of living of all the families of the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that this is a most important Debate and yet there have been only three speakers from the other side of the House and one from the official Opposition benches. Listening to the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food I had a little sympathy with her, similar to that which she had for the hon. Member for

1411
West Fife, in trying to keep in Order with you, Sir, except that the right hon. Lady went a stage further and said she was an expert on these Prayers which I am not. A most important point was made by the hon. Member for West Fife that all this business has come about through the Chancellor of the Exchequer not knowing the pyschological approach to the people of this country. If these Prayers are taken to a Division I certainly shall
vote for their annulment as a vote of censure against the Chancellor, who does not know his business.
Question put,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th April 1949, entitled the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 778), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled."
The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 229.

Division No. 151.]

AYES

[10.57 p.m.

Kendall, W. D.

Pritt, D. N.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Solley, L. J.

Mr. Gallacher and Mr. Piratin.

NOES

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Levy, B. W.

Albu, A. H.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Ewart, R.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Fairhurst, F.

Lindgren, G. S.

Alpass, J. H.

Fennyhough, E.

Logan, D. G.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Longden, F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

Lyne, A. W.

Awbery, S. S.

Foot, M. M.

McAdam, W.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Forman, J. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Bacon, Miss A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mack, J. D.

Baird, J.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Balfour, A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

McKinlay, A. S.

Barstow, P. G.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Barton, C.

Gibbins, J.

McLeavy, F.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gibson, C. W.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Gilzean, A.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Benson, G.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Berry, H.

Gooch, E. G.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Beswick, F.

Grey, C. F.

Mellish, R. J.

Bing, G. H. C.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Messer, F.

Binns, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Blenkinsop, A.

Guy, W. H.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Blyton, W. R.

Hale, Leslie

Mitchison, G. R.

Boardman, H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Monslow, W.

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

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Moody, A. S.

Brock, D. (Halifax)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Morley, R.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hardy, E. A.

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

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Harrison, J.

Mort, D. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Murray, J. D.

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

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Nally, W.

Carmichael, James

Herbison, Miss M.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Champion, A. J.

Hobson, C. R.

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

Cobb, F. A.

Holman, P.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Cocks, F. S.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Oldfield, W. H.

Collindridge, F.

Horabin, T. L.

Oliver, G. H.

Collins, V. J.

Hoy, J.

Paget, R. T.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

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

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Crawley, A.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Pargiter, G. A.

Daggar, G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Parker, J.

Daines, P.

Janner, B.

Parkin, B. T.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jay, D. P. T.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

Peart, T. F.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jenkins, R. H.

Popplewell, E.

Deer, G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Price, M. Philips

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Pryde, D. J.

Diamond, J.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Dobbie, W.

Keenan, W.

Ranger, J.

Dodds, N. N.

Kenyon, C.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Donovan, T.

King, E. M.

Rhodes, H.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Kinley, J.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D.

Robens, A.

Edelman, M.

Lang, G.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Leonard, W.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

West, D. G.

Royle, C.

Sylvester, G. O.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin' gh, E.)

Sargood, R.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wigg, George

Sharp, Granville

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Shurmer, P.

Thurtle, Ennest

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Skaffington, A. M.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

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

Skinnard, F. W.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

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

Woods, G. S.

Snow, J. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Wyatt, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Watson, W. M.

Yates, V. F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Weitzman, D.

Stross, Dr. B.

Walls, W. T. (Walsall)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.

MEAT, BUTTER AND CHEESE ORDERS
Motion made, and Question,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th April 1949, entitled the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 783), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled,"—[Mr. Piratin,]
put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 20th April 1949, entitled the Meat Products and Canned Meat (Amendment) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 782), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled,—[Mr. Piratin,]
put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 6th May, 1949, entitled the Butter (Amendment) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 878), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be annulled,"—[Mr. Piratin,]
put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 6th May 1949, entitled the Cheese (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 879), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th May, be annulled,"—[Mr. Piratin,]
put, and negatived.

MEAT, BUTTER AND CHEESE ORDERS

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past Eleven o' Clock.

POST OFFICE
  Superannuation Award
  Superannuation Award
  New Vehicles (Delivery)
  New Vehicles (Delivery)
  Parcels and Letters (Delays)
  Parcels and Letters (Delays)
  Cheap Telephone Calls
  Cheap Telephone Calls
  Savings Bank
  Savings Bank
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Terminal Leave
  Terminal Leave
  Pyjamas (Issue)
  Pyjamas (Issue)
  Fighter Ajrcraft, Hong Kong
  Fighter Ajrcraft, Hong Kong
  OVERSEAS ASSETS (COMPENSATION)
  OVERSEAS ASSETS (COMPENSATION)
  AFRICAN COLONIES (AMERICAN INVESTMENT)
  AFRICAN COLONIES (AMERICAN INVESTMENT)
NIGERIA AND GOLD COAST
  Freedom of Speech
  Freedom of Speech
  Native Authorities (Heads)
  Native Authorities (Heads)
  BAHAMAS (GUIDED-MISSILES RANGE)
  BAHAMAS (GUIDED-MISSILES RANGE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Manufactured Meat Products
  Manufactured Meat Products
  Sweets (Quality)
  Sweets (Quality)
  Sub-Office, Hurlford
  Sub-Office, Hurlford
  Feedingstuffs
  Feedingstuffs
  GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' CLAIMS)
  GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' CLAIMS)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (REGIONAL OFFICES)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (REGIONAL OFFICES)
  MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS
  MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONS OVERSEAS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONS OVERSEAS)
  EMIGRATION (STATISTICS)
  EMIGRATION (STATISTICS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Factory Building, Scotland
  Factory Building, Scotland
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Water and Sewerage, Pandy Iudur
  Water and Sewerage, Pandy Iudur
  Unmade Streets, Hornchurch
  Unmade Streets, Hornchurch
  AGRICULTURAL LAND, DEVONSHIRE
  AGRICULTURAL LAND, DEVONSHIRE
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House, may I say that we propose to meet the general wish of your Lordships by applying the powers given to us by this Motion, if your Lordships agree to it, and to postpone the Second Reading of the British Film Institute Bill until after the conclusion of the adjourned debate on the Iron and Steel Bill? We shall, of course, not use these powers except after consultation through the usual channels. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsuntide, and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  MALAYAN WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elibank I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper:
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay in the Library of the House copies of the recent published correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Malayan Federation and Singapore Governments regarding the proposed Malaya War Damage Compensation Scheme.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, typewritten copies of the despatch from the Malayan Governments and of my right honourable friend's reply have been placed in the Library of the House. Printed copies will be provided as soon as possible.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.

  OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE POOL
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: 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 give particulars of the number of official cars in the Kensington pool for use in London, as well as officials cars in use elsewhere; whether they will state the total cost of their maintenance, including salaries of officials, etc., whether such cars are used by Ministers for private journeys, and if so, on payment of what rate per mile; and whether they will state how Government expenditure on motor cars, as indicated above, compares with similar Government expenditure in this regard prior to 1945.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the number of cars (including dual-purpose utilities) in the official car service pool at Kensington for use in London is 209. The total number of official cars of all Government Departments, excluding the cars of the official car service in London, the Defence services, and cars overseas, is 7,215. This includes 459 cars of the regional official car service pools. The total cost of the official car service for the year 1948–49 was £504,000. Thirty-four cars are allocated to Ministers for their exclusive use, and they may use them on private journeys on payment of one shilling per mile. The car service was established in 1946 with a view to pooling resources. Since then the numbers of cars have been kept steady. There are no comparable figures prior to that date.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, is my understanding right, that there has been an increase of nearly £100,000 in

  1077
  the cost of this car service during the past year? In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal for economy, and the desirability of saving petrol, what steps are the Government taking to reduce this heavy expenditure both on cars and petrol?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the first statement that the noble Lord made, that the cost has increased by £100,000, is completely outside my knowledge. My understanding is that the present system shows a diminution over the system which we inherited.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords may I ask the noble Lord, in a case of a Minister paying 1s. a mile, whether there is any restriction in the form of maximum mileage; is he limited to the ninety miles a month, or not?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is not within my knowledge that there is any restriction at all.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: Is not the ordinary price for cars 1s. 3d. per mile? Why do Ministers get their cars at 1s. a mile?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are satisfied that the charge of 1s. a mile is fair, both to the Exchequer and to the Ministers concerned.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to and certain other Amendments disagreed to for which disagreement the Commons assign Reasons: the said Reasons to be printed.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  2.42 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by Viscount Hall.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, after the adjournment last night, at the end of a very long Sitting, when no fewer than fourteen of your Lordships had addressed the House, two for the Government and twelve against, I wended my weary way home
  1078
  ward, wondering whether it was still possible to find any new argument either for or against the Iron and Steel Bill. I wondered whether anything more could be said which had not been said several times over, either here or in another place. Just to check up, before I went to bed I looked at the House of Commons Hansard containing the Third Reading debate in the House of Commons. The first statement that caught my eye was that of an M.P. who said that during the Committee stage alone in the House of Commons 1,090 speeches were delivered, 700 for the Opposition and 390 for the Government. Idly turning over pages I was a little startled after reading that to find that in winding up on the Third Reading the leading speaker for the Opposition said:
  "This Bill leaves this House for another place unwept, unhonoured and undiscussed."
  When I was an innocent Member of another place I often suspected that certain leaders of all Parties were inclined to allow their eloquence to run away with them and to lead them into slightly overstating their case. I fear they are still doing it. When we conclude our debate this evening I shall not object to any of your Lordships saying: "The Bill is unwept and unhonoured": but "undiscussed"—No!
  The speeches delivered in your Lordships' House yesterday were, in many respects, similar to those in another place except, of course, that they were of a higher level and better delivered—as one would naturally expect. My first general conclusion, after hearing or reading, all the speeches, will not greatly surprise your Lordships. It is that the majority of your Lordships do not entirely approve of this Bill. When the Minister of Supply moved the Second Reading in another place on November 15 last, he said:
  "It has been suggested that in spite of the electoral mandate which the Government received for this measure, it may be rejected—or suffer death by a thousand cuts in another place."
  So be it. In due course, your Lordships will, no doubt, take the steps which you think wise and prudent, quite irrespective of any advice from me. Indeed, it would be presumptuous of me to offer any. I gather, however, from the debate, so far as it has gone, and particularly from the very clear statement of the noble Marquess that, despite the well-known

  1079
  kindliness of noble Lords opposite, in this particular case they prefer to use the bloodthirsty method of death by a thousand cuts.
  Trying to sum up these long speeches in both Houses on this "undiscussed" Bill, I believe that I have found one main point of agreement between the Government and the Opposition. It is this: that, so far as I know, no important member of any political Party desires to return to unregulated private ownership of the iron and steel industry. I doubt whether there are any of your Lordships who would not support that proposition. Will your Lordships listen for a moment to Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, speaking on November 15, 1948? He said (referring to the Conservative Party):
  "We think that a great basic industry like the steel industry, employing a large number of men, and considering the widespread use of steel in other industries, and the power of the steel industry to contribute to our exports, is so important that it should have Government supervision.… We believe that the prices charged by the industry should be subject to Government supervision and approval.… The Government should govern and supervise and not own and manage."
  So there we are. The Conservative policy for the steel industry is: Government supervision; no competition, except with the consent of the Government; prices subject to Government supervision and approval; and that the Government should govern and supervise. I think we can all agree that this is a long way from the Leader's well known slogan, "Set the people free."
  What is left between us? Again, if I may use Mr. Lyttelton's words, he said:
  "The Unionist Party would accept a certain amount of Government supervision for the iron and steel industry provided that it stopped short of ownership."
  So I put this as a fair statement of the difference between us: the Government are competent to supervise the steel industry, to permit or not to permit competition, to decide on prices charged by the industry; are the Government, therefore, competent or incompetent to own it? I think that clearly states the publicly announced dividing line between the supporters of this Bill and the opponents. Indeed, it can be boiled down to this: that the supporters say this industry is so tremendously important to the people of the country that in view of the diffi
  1080
  cult days through which we are passing it would be unwise to leave it in private ownership; while the Opposition say that to take this industry out of private hands would be a mistake from which the country might never recover. I hope that is a fair statement of both sides.
  Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Hall outlined clearly the reasons why the Government had produced this Bill. In view of the subsequent twelve speeches I doubt whether he succeeded in converting many of your Lordships to supporting the Bill. If he could not do so, I think the chances of my success are even less. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat the arguments for the Bill, good as they undoubtedly are. With your Lordships' permission, I will content myself with what might be called, if I may be forgiven for using the expression, a running commentary on yesterday's proceedings.
  After my noble friend Lord Hall came the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who without waste of time proceeded, in cricket language, to hit out all round the wicket. If he will allow me to say so, I thought he was in sparkling form; I thought that perhaps his skipper had told him before he came in that the tactics in this match were to "hit out or get out." There was a little confusion towards the end of his innings, and I was a little uncertain how he finally got out. So far as I can recollect, I think that what really happened was that my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who was quietly fielding in a place known as silly mid-on, stopped a hard stroke which was going straight off to the boundary and caused the batsman to fall over his wicket. Lord Swinton was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who proceeded to put some very difficult questions; but as he was looking in the direction of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and not in my direction I was glad to assume that he expected Lord Addison, and not me, to answer them; and I hope the noble Viscount will do so later.
  Then came the noble Marquess, captain of his side, going in second wicket down—unusually early, as he indicated. Here I think I had better drop the language of the cricket field. The noble Marquess said that he rose to give guidance—and he did. I hope the noble Marquess will not be offended if I say that I thought the brilliant speech that

  1081
  he delivered was almost worthy of Mr. Churchill at his best. True, he used language seldom heard in this House; he called this a "revolutionary Bill," "a definite step towards Communism," "sinister," "grubby," "deplorable." I hope this kind of language is not going to be regularly used in this House, otherwise some of us on this side of the House will be indulging in recollections of the language used many years ago. I hope it is not our coming to this side of the House that has led the noble Marquess to indulge in language of that kind. There was only one familiar word missing from his speech; I do not know whether he forgot it—I hope he deliberately forgot it. It was the word "Gestapo" which, your Lordships will remember, lost his Party some millions of votes at the last General Election. I should like to congratulate the noble Marquess; I am naturally difficult to convince, but his speech convinced me of one thing at least—that he thoroughly disliked this Bill. What I could not understand clearly, if he will forgive my saying so, was the anti-climax of his speech. He will remain in my memory as the statesman (if I wanted to be rude I should say "politician") who, after using violent language about this most wicked Bill, proceeded to make a fervent appeal to his followers, assembled almost in mass meeting behind him, for Heaven's sake not to oppose its Second Reading.
  I enjoyed the noble Marquess in his rôle of champion of private enterprise. I have never been able quite to understand that phrase as applied to ownership of the steel industry. It reminds me of the man who spent a holiday at Southport and said, when he returned, "Southport is all right. It is not in the South and it is not a port, but it is all right." Similarly, much of private enterprise is not very private and in many respects not very enterprising; but apart from that it is all right. I prefer to call it "private acquisition." At one part of his speech the noble Marquess quoted Shakespeare. When I hear a speaker saying he is about to quote Shakespeare, I know he is really getting into his stride. I hope the noble Marquess will think that I am really getting into my stride if I also quote Shakespeare. When I looked at the noble Marquess yesterday, surrounded by his faithful henchmen, denouncing the Bill as "ballyhoo"
  1082
  (not altogether a Shakespearean word, if I may say so) and trouncing the Government, a few words came into my memory:
  "Why; man, he doth bestride the narrow world
  Like a Colossus, and we petty men
  Walk under his huge legs and peep about
  To find ourselves dishonourable graves."
  In much inferior words of my own, the noble Marquess appeared to me to be saying: "Out of the way, you members of the House of Commons elected by the people. We are the Lords of Creation and will dictate what you must do."
  For the rest, I desire to pay my tribute to many excellent speeches, which indicated a great knowledge of the steel industry and brought out many points that my colleagues and I will find pleasure in answering during the Committee stage. There was one point, however (made, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and other speakers), to which I wish to refer. In view of statements which have been made suggesting that the trade unions representing the workers in the iron and steel industry do not want nationalisation, it is worth placing the facts on record. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which represents the great majority of the workers employed in the heavy branches of the industry, first adopted a resolution calling for public ownership in 1931. The Confederation's scheme for the socialisation of the industry was subsequently adopted by the T.U.C. in 1934. The Confederation reaffirmed the policy of iron and steel nationalisation at divisional conferences in 1943 and again in a report to the Government in 1945, when it declared that the scheme adopted by the T.U.C. in 1934 constituted the declared policy of the Confederation on the question.
  It is true that no resolution on the question was moved by the Confederation or the Blastfurnacemen's Union at the Trades Union Congresses of 1946 to 1948, but it is not to be inferred from this that there was any change of policy in the matter. It was made abundantly clear, in the speeches made on behalf of the Confederation and the blastfurnacemen during the T.U.C. debates, that there was no departure from their previous decisions, and that they were content to rely on Government promises, which are now being implemented, to nationalise at the

  1083
  appropriate time the relevant portions of the industry.
  The latest published affirmation of the Confederation's support for this measure, which puts its attitude beyond question, was contained in a resolution passed by the Executive Council of the Confederation on November 16, 1948, and quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. The text of that resolution was as follows:
  "The Executive Council of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation welcomes the Steel Bill and places on record its satisfaction that the Government are now introducing a measure to bring the industry under public ownership. It repudiates the suggestion which is being made that the workers in the industry are opposed to nationalisation. Its policy on this question has never altered since it first advocated a scheme of public ownership of the industry in 1931 which was later adopted by the Trades Union Congress. Since 1945 it has accepted the assurances given by the Government that within the life-time of the present Parliament the industry will be nationalised, believing that this course is necessary for the future of the industry and the well-being of the country as a whole. The Confederation, as the principal trade union in the industry, assures the Government that its members will do all in their power to ensure the success of the scheme when it becomes law."
  If sufficient time is to be afforded for the ten or twelve other speakers who desire to speak to-day, it would be unreasonable of me to answer even generally many of the other arguments that were raised by previous speakers. In particular, I regret that the only comment I can make about the speech made on Scotland last evening by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, is that, so far as my knowledge of Scotland goes, Scotland will continue to show as much private enterprise when this Bill becomes law as it has always done.
  In conclusion, may I now say what, in my opinion, this most enjoyable day that we spent yesterday was all about? It all happened because of a Bill which says that in the Year of Grace, 1950, the mighty iron and steel industry, upon which our population of 50,000,000 is largely dependent and upon which our survival as a great nation largely depends, ought not to continue to be the private property of the few but should be publicly owned. With many and loud protestations your Lordships opposite say, "No." Hoping to placate them—for we do our best from these Benches to placate them—we reply, "Well, it will
  1084
  not be so bad after all. The shareholders will be compensated." But that only makes them more angry still, and they reply: "We do not want your compensation money; and, besides, it is not enough." I think I had better leave the issue there, in the hope that, before the final stages, your Lordships may realise that in this rapidly-changing world the Conservative Party cannot for ever continue to maintain a system of private ownership of things vital for the needs of all. Here, as I feared—I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me—I must again emulate him and quote from Shakespeare, because I know that his words will be remembered while mine will soon be forgotten. I quote from memory:
  "… you take my life
  When you do take the means whereby I live."
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the noble Lord who has just sat down. In his very charming way, as usual, he has endeavoured to put forward answers to the very difficult questions which were raised in yesterday's debate. But I am bound to say that I find all his answers very unsatisfactory. I suggest that it is perfectly clear, from the introduction of this Bill, that the Government are concerned neither with good economics nor with the national interest, but merely with power politics. What do we find in this Iron and Steel Bill? I suggest that there is not one single clause or line in the Bill which will contribute in any way to the efficiency of the iron and steel industry. In fact, the Bill does not even indicate how the proposed new Iron and Steel Corporation are to administer the network of public companies which are to come under their control.
  We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that no one in any Party wishes to return to unregulated private enterprise, and I think that we all agree with him. But I would like to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government later to-day why it is considered necessary to disturb the present system of good relations in the industry and, also, all the arrangements for Government supervision which has preserved all that is best, flexible and efficient in private enterprise. It is not in any way an unregulated industry. I suggest that the present system represents a unique and successful experiment of a middle way

  1085
  between unregulated private enterprise and Government control; and, what is more, I believe that it is acceptable to a large majority of all thinking people in this country. The real trouble is, I think, that His Majesty's Government will continue to legislate for the past, instead of for the future.
  We have heard from time to time—not in your Lordships' House, it is true—that one of the main arguments for nationalisation is that the iron and steel industry is the key to the capitalist's citadel, and that once this citadel has been stormed and entered and the power of the steel barons broken, then Socialism in our time will really be an accomplished fact. As I say, we have not yet heard that argument in this House, and I hope we shall not hear it. The fact is that practically everyone at the head of the industry to-day has risen from the ranks, and the industry is owned by a vast number of small shareholders. I suggest that the Government already have sufficient public control for any need that may arise in the industry. It may be argued—I think it was mentioned yesterday by one noble Lord—that the powers of the Iron and Steel Board were negative, rather than positive, and that for that reason they could not initiate new developments and new enterprises. Surely, if the Board at any time felt that their powers were not strong enough, they could have co-operated with the Iron and Steel Federation to work out a more effective plan. We should then have had evolution, and not revolution, in this great industry which is now to be allied with political dogma and out-of-date theories which have already been shown to be wrong in other nationalised industries.
  Under the present set-up, the various steel companies have been able to carry out their own policies, and have been free to make their own decisions under the guidance of the Iron and Steel Board. What is going to happen when all these hundred companies come under the sway of the new proposed Iron and Steel Corporation? Surely there is bound to be a tendency for managements to cease to feel responsible for their undertakings; and frustration, delay and discontent are bound to arise. We have seen this happen in other nationalised industries, and again we shall see efforts which should be directed to improving the industry
  1086
  being drawn away to unproductive work, such as administrative readjustment and so on. What is more, I think, we shall find that labour will require something out of nationalisation, and there will be the usual demand and pressure for higher wages. Administrative costs will go up and inevitably, as night follows day, the price of steel will rise, and we may find ourselves priced out of the world markets—not a very happy position to find ourselves in when Marshall Aid is coming to an end. I think no one can dispute that labour relations in the industry have been a model of co-operative good sense, If all this is to be swept away by the Moloch of nationalisation, the men in the industry will feel themselves further away from the boss than ever they have been in the past. Grievances which have frequently been settled in the board room will now have to be ground away in the bureaucratic wheels of this mammoth organisation, and that is bound to cause delay and unrest amongst the men in the industry.
  The main charge that I levy against His Majesty's Government is that by the introduction of this Bill they intend to destroy a nucleus of a new and promising set-up in industry which has worked well and produced all that has been demanded of it—a set-up which is neither undiluted private enterprise nor complete State ownership, but which has succeeded in giving the country a high output of steel and peaceful labour relations. I believe that it is true to say that His Majesty's Government have inherited from the past a rancour and prejudice against private enterprise which seems to blind them to the future. The only solvent they appear to have for this rancour and prejudice is State ownership, regardless of whether it may be good or bad for the industry and the country.
  My Lords, I suggest that what is required to-day is not the concentration of power in a huge monopoly, with all its attendant faults, but a scheme in which private enterprise is left to do the work of production and trading and the Government are left to act as an impartial overseer, with powers to guide the industry in the direction of national interest. All that this Bill means is that the State will abdicate its present impartial position, and will become an arbitrary competitor in a large field of

  1087
  industry. Private enterprise does not in any way fear competition on level terms, whether from a public Corporation or elsewhere. But, by the nature of things, how can these terms be level? Surely there exists the danger of preferential treatment! It is true that an Amendment has now been inserted in the Bill in another place to try and prevent the Corporation from showing undue preference, but such undue preference might equally well be shown by the public companies, and, as the Bill is now drawn, I think it would be difficult to bring an action against the Corporation.
  There is another matter which I think will arise as a result of the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry, and which may well involve the country in serious international difficulty. When the world knows that the State is the owner of practically all British steel-producing units, and attempts are made to vary the price of steel in order to re-enter, or perhaps retain, the foreign markets, all kinds of complications will arise which may well be very detrimental to this country. Can it be doubted that foreign countries will look upon subsidiaries of a British State Corporation carrying on activities within their own countries in a quite different light? Can it really be that His Majesty's Government fondly hope that our overseas customers will be fooled by the façade that is now to be erected in this Bill in order to make it appear that our famous steel firms are still under the same management and control? It may well happen that when this change has taken place our overseas customers will no longer have the same confidence as they have at present in these firms; and our exports may suffer. I need hardly remind your Lordships that steel, and articles made of steel, represent nearly 50 per cent. of our export figures.
  In this Bill the Government seek powers far in excess of those obtained in any previous nationalisation measure, and yet these powers and intentions are far less precisely defined in it. As in the case of all previous nationalisation measures, the Government have been absorbed in the theoretical case for nationalisation, but have paid little or no attention to the practical problems; and in the end the taxpayer, as usual, will have to pay for this lack of planning.
  1088
  In spite of all the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said about the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, I think it is gravely open to doubt that the majority of the steel workers in the industry are really in favour of nationalisation. Even supposing they were, it would be because they have had so much false propaganda put upon them by the Socialist Party. There is no doubt that the Party opposite have done their best to persuade the workers in the iron and steel industry that nationalisation will give them greater security of employment. But, my Lords, it will do nothing of the kind. Nationalisation will lower efficiency and steel prices will rise, and that must inevitably mean less demand for steel; and less demand for steel means less employment. Even a nationalised industry cannot get over these economic facts. In the last year or two the steel workers have seen what has happened in the nationalised airlines, and in other nationalised industries, where it has been found necessary to discharge quite a number of workers, and I think they are beginning to realise that nationalisation is no insurance against unemployment.
  The iron and steel industry, as we all know, has surpassed all expectations and its success is marvellous; I think that is acknowledged on all sides. Output is at record levels, prices are low and competitive in foreign markets, and labour relations are excellent. Why do the Government wish to disturb this industry by passing a measure which will contribute, as I suggest, nothing to the efficiency of the industry and which only erects a new and less accessible monopoly? I suggest the real answer is not far to seek. We can see it in a speech made by a Government supporter in another place, when these words were used:
  "When we have nationalised steel we shall have broken the back of capitalist control of industry and its domination for ever, and if that happens, whatever Party is in power, we shall be a Socialist State."
  My Lords, that is the purpose of this Bill in all its naked ugliness. The issue of steel nationalisation is the vital issue between democracy and Socialism and the establishment of a complete Socialist State.
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I have no special interest to disclose, but I am

  1089
  probably one of the few people in this House who happen to have approached this question of the State in relation to the steel industry at close quarters from both sides of the table. The Leader of the House will recall that it fell to my lot in 1918 to prepare the plan for the demobilisation and decontrol of the steel industry in the following year. A year later I had the task of organising the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers as its first director. Two years later I parted company with the steel industry owing to a difference over policy, because at that time I had discovered that the steel-masters were not prepared for a sweeping measure of rationalisation, and any such scheme would be frustrated by the many sectional organisations in the industry, whose sole purpose was to control prices in the interests of the trade. Subsequently, I happened to come into contact with the same problem during the Second World War.
  I intervene in this debate because I would like it to go on record that, as a result of my experience, my conclusion is that this Bill involves taking an unwarranted risk with our most essential industry at a very critical moment in the economic history of the country. During the recent debates—I mean the debates which have taken place in the past few months—a great number of bad arguments have been put forward, one of which was particularly lucidly dealt with by my noble friend, Lord Rennell. It would be tempting to follow on similar lines, but I do not propose to do so. Nor indeed do I propose to touch on all the points which were raised yesterday. But as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to the question of whether the people of the country were or were not in favour of this Bill, I should like, again for the record, to note that in a recent Gallup Poll the voting was two to one against the Bill. I know that the result of the Presidential Election in the United States has cast a certain doubt on Gallup Polls, but even the severest critic of such polls would hardly claim that the margin of error is such as to convert a two-to-one majority against into a majority in favour of the Bill.
  A further point that is interesting in connection with the Gallup Poll is that when the same question was put a year
  1090
  previously the result had been a tie. So, during the twelve months of 1948, public opinion, as recorded in that way, has moved from a position of doubt and uncertainty to a very definite majority against steel nationalisation. But, after all, these are not matters which we can suitably debate here. They serve only to underline the significance of the proposal made yesterday by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that the right course to pursue is to leave the question to be decided by the vote of the people.
  The first speaker said yesterday—rightly, in my opinion—and it has been repeated again and again, that there are a number of points of common ground from which we can start the discussion of this measure. The first is, clearly, the enormous importance of the industry. The size of the industry was also mentioned to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who seemed to think that because the industry was big therefore it should be nationalised. We on this side of the House cannot possibly accept that view. The test is not whether an industry is big or not. The test is whether the form of organisation proposed by the Government is suited to that industry and most likely to promote effective efficient production and services for the community. Secondly, we all accept and agree that the State has a vital interest in the steel industry. There cannot be a return to laissez-faire, and we cannot assume that competition alone will produce all the results which the public interest requires. The State must therefore have some powers of direction and control, and in particular, in the tight place in which this country finds itself after the Second World War, the fiat of the Government must run in such matters as capital expenditure, prices charged, localisation in relation to our resources generally and defence.
  Thirdly—I am not quite sure how far this would be accepted by all the speakers who have spoken in opposition to the Bill, but it is my own view—I should not include myself among those who dismiss the criticisms that have been made of the iron and steel industry in the past. Indeed, during the early part of this century the industry undoubtedly passed through a period of great stagnation. The industry in its present form is less than

  1091
  a hundred years old, for the Bessemer converter was invented only as late as 1857. In the early part of this century, the industry was having a reaction after its first brilliant period, owing in part to the fact that it had fallen into the hands of ironmasters of the third and fourth generation. But after passing through the pressure of the inter-war period, the industry has made very great strides and, particularly in the last ten years, has had a great measure of success which even the critics of the industry have acknowledged.
  I would add a fourth point of common ground between us—namely, that the problem of the iron and steel industry is utterly different from that of any other industry which has been nationalised during the life of the present Government. That is shown by the different character of the solution proposed, for while there is to be a transfer of power—to use Lord Hall's phrase—the State is going to keep in being the separate units of the industry. A compromise is to be attempted between power in the hands of the State and some kind of independent existence of the units. That brings me to the central point, which has already been repeated a number of times and which I do not propose to deal with at length. It is that the sole test of whether a policy is good or bad in this industry is whether or not it makes the industry increasingly efficient, progressive—particularly in the matter of the adoption of new processes and methods—adaptable to changing circumstances, and such that in its development, its localisation and its activities generally it conforms to the requirements of national policy.
  If ever these conditions were necessary—particularly the conditions of adaptability and flexibility—they are necessary now in respect of the iron and steel industry. Those of us who are opposed to the form of this Bill believe that the essential conditions for a vigorous industry—this also has been mentioned a number of times—are (a) that control and ownership should be divorced, not joined; and (b) that the units should be sufficiently independent to maintain internal competition. In this connection, it cannot be too forcibly insisted that the iron and steel industry from its outset has been and still is a constantly changing industry. But it is significant that at
  1092
  every stage the changes have been made against the weight of authority. Take, for example, the introduction of the Bessemer process. What a hard fight Sir Henry Bessemer had to overcome the resistance of the ironmasters of those days! Move on a number of years to the Siemens' open hearth process, and then a further ten years to 1879, to the introduction by Thomas of the basic steel process. That was an English invention, but it was an English invention which largely created the German iron and steel industry and enabled Germany to challenge Europe and the world in the First World War. All the weight of English authority was against its use in this country.
  Critics might say that that was the fault of the steelmasters, and that if only the State had had something to do with it, it would have gone ahead with this new process. That is certainly not the case. Twenty-five years later, in 1904, the late Sir Hugh Bell did his best to persuade the Royal Commission on Food and Raw Materials in Time of War to lift the ban on the use of basic steel for defence purposes. He failed. Eleven years later, in 1915, as the Leader of the House will well remember, Mr. Lloyd George had one of his hottest battles to overcome this ban, imposed, not by the steelmasters, but by the Army and Navy authorities. If that ban had not been swept away, the great munitions effort of the First World War would have been impossible. If we were to go through the history of the British iron and steel industry, we would see that all the way through progress has been made against the weight of conservative authority, a weight all the greater in the case of Government authority.
  If the iron and steel industry is to regain its dynamic keenness of development and go forward on an expansionist line, it must be independent in matters of technique and process. It is imperative that there should be great freedom and elasticity. It may be said that this is now impossible because the industry has already become a monopoly. But to argue along those lines is to misunderstand the character of the British Iron and Steel Federation. It is true that there are some monopolistic features in that organisation, including the very important one of price control, but this is

  1093
  exercised in conjunction with the Government. If we use the word "monopoly" in the sense of a highly centralised organisation, then the British Iron and Steel Federation is certainly not a monopoly but a federation of independent units.
  Of course, it has common services, as it should have, but it is an organisation of separate entities which possess the characteristics of private enterprise. These are, first, freedom to compete in process and method, secondly, competition in forms of organisation, and thirdly, absolute freedom in the choice of personnel—a characteristic that is vital for a dynamic, pushful industry, which is to keep free from the hampering incubus of bureaucracy. The continued existence of such concerns will be determined by their ability to keep afloat by making profit. If firms in the industry have those three conditions, they have the essentials of freedom of enterprise; but if not, then the danger is that the industry will be weighted down by bureaucracy and develop stiffening in the joints. It seems to me that there is no guarantee against the Corporation imposing stratification and standards of method or action on the iron and steel industry. I can see nothing in the Bill to ensure that the conditions of freedom, liveliness and competition will exist in the industry in its new form.
  At the beginning, I said that the issue is one between control and ownership. It is common ground that the industry must obey orders. But there is all the difference in the world between general orders issued to an industry by a controlling authority, and special orders which are delivered to every firm in connection with its own business. Where there are special orders, the management ceases to be independent. The gravest danger of the Bill is that it will suppress and kill not only the willingness but the desire to take risks on the part of those who are responsible for the British iron and steel industry.
  It has been said that while the Government have negative powers, they cannot really ensure the public interest unless they also have positive powers; they must have powers, it is said, not merely to restrict, but to tell each firm what it is to do. That criticism does not seem
  1094
  to me to be a valid one. In the first place, it is not true that negative powers are practically ineffectual The State has great powers in many spheres for directing the course of the activities of our citizens, and in the main these are negative powers. But there is a further answer. I believe there are very few groups of business men who, while they run their businesses for financial reasons, do not regard themselves in some respect as public servants, as men whose work is integrated into the life of the community. Very few, if any, groups of business men will not carry out the wishes of a Government Department if the reasons why a thing should be done are made clear to them. And I believe that to be true of peace as well as of war. My last word to the representatives of the Government on the opposite Front Bench is that there has been no clear indication of the policy which has been projected. If what is needed further in the public interest is made clear, I personally do not doubt at all that it will be carried out by the British Iron and Steel industry. At all events, try it.
  3.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, in accordance with the custom of the House I declare my interest in a firm affected by the Third Schedule of this Bill. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time, but there are three or four points to which I should like to refer. A certain amount has been said during the course of this long debate with regard to the effect of this Bill upon the interests of consumers. I should like to say a word or two about that aspect of the Bill. I happen to be President of a body of engineers, organised regionally, and they form a microcosm of the greatest users of steel. They are not a political body. Their arguments and their reasons for opposing this Bill are purely economic. I will weary your Lordships for only a moment or two by reading their view.
  They regard this Bill as harmful to every engineering firm, because it would disrupt the steel industry, splitting it into three sections—nationalised, licensed and free. It would substitute a rigid central executive control (the Iron and Steel Corporation) for the present system whereby there is Government control of broad lines of policy and of prices, but under which individual firms preserve their independence

  1095
  and vie with one another in achieving the utmost efficiency and in studying the needs of their consumers. Moreover, it would bring Government-owned units in the engineering industries into direct competition with privately-owned undertakings, thereby prejudicing the fair allocation of raw materials and licences.
  What is it that the consumer of steel requires? He requires the right steel, at the right time, at the right place and at the right price. Under this Bill there is no guarantee—in fact, in our view, there is exactly the opposite—that the consumer will have any of those four requirements satisfied. Having said that, I would like to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said with regard to the effect of this Bill on our export trade. It has been my experience to travel the world, and there is the greatest difference between firms having diplomatic support and the Government being principals in a contract. Bulk buying, we know from bitter experience, has put up the price of many commodities; and bulk buying suffers from exactly the same defect as that from which the steel trade would suffer if it were nationalised. It is this. Where there are relations between Governments it is impossible to exclude politics. One of the dangers of nationalising steel is that a foreign client, when considering contracts for public works or for capital plant, will think twice before he engages himself with a Government rather than with a private firm, where he has a remedy in the courts if there is a breach in the contract of any sort or kind. After all, we have had experience of bulk buying—I think it would be unwise even to comment on it at the moment, because the negotiations have reached a critical stage; but your Lordships know to what I am referring. The relations between Governments must ultimately always be on a political basis. Whereas, in the case of private enterprise, if there is any breach of contract there is a remedy in the courts, there is only one ultimate sanction when difference between Governments is carried to its logical conclusion; and that is war.
  The noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Ridley, referred to what is, in the long run the most vital factor in the production of steel—namely, the relationship between the partners in the team. I desire to be restrained in my language, but
  1096
  those of us who are connected with the trade, and feel our responsibilities for the welfare of these men, deeply abhor the methods which are being adopted to win the support of the men engaged in the industry for the scheme of nationalisation. I have evidence of men in leading positions as leaders of their fellowmen in the iron and steel trade, who have been told by men who know it is not true that if the steel industry is owned by the Government there will be full employment and that, come slump or no slump, they will continue to make and roll steel. The only reason, in the case of many of the men, for their support for this Bill is the belief that they will be safe in their employment. Anyone in a position of responsibility who uses that argument in order to gain support for any political policy is deserving only of contempt.
  I have lived most of my life in the shadows, in that part of London where policy has been created. When the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was delivering his attack upon noble Lords on the Government Benches (Lord Morrison and I were old colleagues in another place, and I hope we are still good friends), and on the ultimate intention of the Government to acquire not only through the nationalisation of the prosperous iron and steel industry but also through the nationalisation of the great insurance undertakings—a great deal of wealth, of which they were very short I could not help feeling that since our standards in public life must be maintained it is the duty of the Opposition, if they find the standards are going down, to use their opportunities of criticising. They should do that, not in order to be just futile or annoying but in order to try and see that standards are maintained.
  There is one other thing I would say. There is no justification whatever for this Bill. The steel industry, as Lord Layton has just said, was not always perfect; it was reactionary. The steel industry has learned its lesson. It organised itself long before the Government had any idea of organising it. It was private enterprise that created the Iron and Steel Federation, which enabled us to come into the war fully organised. We were organised on the external side, and we had also so organised our export machinery that we were able to take advantage of markets which hitherto, owing to our cut-throat competition, we

  1097
  had lost. We have realised fully in the steel industry the dangers from which we suffered, and I think everybody will now admit—even the Government will admit this; and perhaps that is the reason why they want to nationalise us—that we are as efficient as any other industry in the country. If we are opposing this Bill it is because we feel (I oppose it, and I do so mainly on this ground) that the result will be the exact opposite of that which the Government believe will follow. I believe the livelihood of the men will be jeopardised, and the initiative will be lost. I think it is public knowledge that it was during the deepest depression that a great firm with which I am connected took the risk of building the Sydney Bridge. They did it to keep their men employed. What was the result? The result was that British expertise, design, craftsmanship and quality of steel became famous all over the world; more bridges were built by Great Britain, and in that way more men were employed. Would nationalised industry take that risk? I am perfectly certain that it would not. I am not going to say anything more, except that I shall oppose this Bill with all the vigour at my disposal.
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, no one could have listened to this debate during the last two days without realising that noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord who has just sat down is an example—speak with sincerity and conviction. There is no doubt that the debate, so far as it has gone, has demonstrated once more how fortunate this country is in having at its disposal such a wealth of knowledge and experience. But, unlike many noble Lords on the other side, I have no interest, vested or otherwise, to disclose. I speak as a citizen who tries to take an intelligent interest in these matters. We have listened to a long debate, a debate which I think, boiled down, might have been compressed into one speech. Members of the Opposition have repeated over and over again the same arguments, and I imagine that for the rest of this debate we shall hear much the same thing again. We have had a perfect orchestra. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was the first violin and set the pace. But I submit that the whole of the debate has been based on two very serious fallacies. First, we do not
  1098
  say, and never have said, that the justification for nationalising the iron and steel industry rests upon proving a case of inefficiency. Secondly, we do not assume, as noble Lords appear to assume, that on the vesting date the leaders of the industry—the ironmasters, the technicians and the management—will, as by some virulent poison, change to a lot of gibbering maniacs. That is the suggestion behind so much of what has been said on the other side.
  The Bill provides, in a unique manner, for the continuance of the industry with the least disturbance. There will be as much scope for the technicians as there is to-day—probably more. Therefore, I am submitting that the main arguments upon which nearly all the speeches have been based are on unfounded premises. It has been suggested that the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry, and all other industries, is something new in the Socialist programme. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman—I am sorry that he is not here—has tried to raise again the bogy of Communism. Now it is rather dangerous to label every aspiration of the working class as springing from Communism. It is dangerous in respect of such matters as those with which we are now dealing, and dangerous in the wider field of international unrest. A great part of this surging forward of the working man is a perfectly legitimate aspiration, and it is manifest in one country in one way and in another country in another way. Our way is the way which has been taken in this case—by the ballot box and by the election of a Socialist Government. If a Socialist Government were to be untrue to the principles which they have adumbrated for a generation, then there would be more danger of the Communism which is feared than otherwise.
  In the few minutes I propose to speak, I will not deal with some of the obvious misunderstandings which manifested themselves in the course of yesterday's debate; they will probably emerge on the Committee stage and will be dealt with then. My noble friend Lord Morrison dealt with the suggestion that there had been no demand for this Bill by the workers in the iron and steel industry—a point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, referred a moment ago. I think it can be accepted that, if the nationalisation of iron and

  1099
  steel were not proceeded with, some unrest would be manifested in the iron and steel industry. But the Labour Party does not legislate for sectional interests. My noble friend Lord Hall touched on the fundamental basis of this matter when he said yesterday that the logical sequence of social democracy is economic democracy. If democracy is to govern, it must take over basic industries. Some of us have been concerned for many years with the building up of this great Labour movement, and we are not content merely to change the name of these organisations. We say that ways must be found whereby the workers in the industry—notwithstanding that there are exceptions to what I am saying now—must find a channel through which they can express themselves from the bottom to the top.
  I had sent to me the other day a treatise on the relationship between workers and management by a young man who I think is an inspector in one of our engineering industries. I am not suggesting for one moment that what he says is right or wrong. What I am suggesting is that, throughout industry, the more intelligent of the working people are thinking along lines of wanting to take an active part in the executive direction of industry, and they will be worth cultivating for the sake of the industries as well as for the sake of themselves. Some of your Lordships have postulated that even though it might at some time be proper to nationalise the industry, this is not the time to do it. There, there is a fundamental difference between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. We believe most profoundly that if we, as a nation, are to regain and maintain the standard of living to which we have been accustomed, the sooner we nationalise and bring under national control the basic industries, the sooner we shall get to that standard of life we all desire. Every week, every month, every year's delay in doing that will put back the time when we can hope to recover.
  But the whole of the debate, so far as I have been able to gather, has been concerned with what I call the mechanics of the industry—including, of course, finance. There is something more than that, however. The relationship between worker and management will have to be studied by all Parties and some solution
  1100
  to the problem will have to be found. Noble Lords opposite may be likened to Canute. They will attempt, as they always have attempted, to thwart the rising of the common people to higher standards until the pressure becomes too great, and possibly dangerous. It may be good political strategy for the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to promise, as he has promised, to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope it may be possible that the Government will be able to meet him in the suggestion that he made with regard to the vesting date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad—if I may interrupt the noble Lord—to have the opportunity of clearing up this point, for there has been a certain amount of misapprehension in the newspapers. It is the whole of the coming into operation of the Bill that I suggest should be postponed until October. There would have to be consequential Amendments with regard to the vesting date, which will come at a later date. It is not merely the vesting date, however, but the coming into operation of the Bill which I suggest should be postponed until after there has been opportunity of consultation with the people.
  LORD KERSHAW: I am not very much concerned. I am sure we all understand what is in our minds. But, as one who has been concerned with the administration of the law for many years, I attach importance to the dictum that not only must justice be done, but that it must appear to be done. I am glad that, thanks to the generosity, I nearly said the patronising generosity, of the noble Marquess and his followers, a Second Reading is being given to the Bill, so that it will be possible for the wealth of knowledge and experience which has been manifested in this debate to be directed to an impartial and objective examination of the measure at a later date.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD BRAND: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is correct and there are no further arguments either for or against this Bill to be put, I am afraid I shall be wasting your Lordships' time. But I think the noble Lord may have listened, as I did with admiration, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Layton, and may have learned something from it.

  1101
  I do not say that I can teach your Lordships anything, because I am not acquainted with the iron and steel industry and I have no interests in it. Nevertheless, I want to put to your Lordships certain arguments which perhaps may throw another light on this Bill. I regard it as against the interests of our Parliamentary democracy, and against our economy in general, that the Government should own and work competitive industries, and particularly industries concerned in the export trade. What we are debating to-day is, in my view, part of one of the greatest problems of our time—namely, what, in a free Parliamentary democracy, is the sphere of government, and what is the sphere of the private citizen, considered not only from the point of view of freedom but of the standard of living. No one denies the immensely important sphere of government in our financial, monetary and economic life. It is an important sphere in all countries; it is doubly important in ours, because we are the furthest possible away from being a closed economy. We have to secure the best standard of life for 50,000,000 people on our crowded Island, and yet we are necessarily exposed to influences, good and bad, from all the rest of the world.
  In these circumstances I regard two things above all as being necessary. The first is a Government which devotes itself to maintaining, so far as possible, stability and equilibrium in our central monetary and exchange framework and also our elasticity—and this is a point that Lord Layton particularly stressed—in our adjustment to world conditions. The second thing that is necessary is a Government which does not itself try to conduct the country's foreign trade, but leaves the vital energies of the nation free for that purpose. The sole reason why we have 50,000,000 on this Island is our unparalleled success in the nineteenth century, through free enterprise, in building up an immense foreign trade in relation to our size and in making great foreign investments throughout the world. Times are now much more difficult, but in my view our objective must still be the same.
  I need not do more than refer briefly to some highly important duties of government—I think sometimes they are forgotten—in the sphere of central control. They include, as your Lordships well know, control of currency and ex
  1102
  change, and the preservation of our ultimate reserves; control of Government expenditure to secure that taxation is not too burdensome; control of inflation and deflation; and control of aggregate demand and purchasing power in relation to our productive capacity, in an attempt to prevent booms and slumps and to minimise unemployment. These are the really important functions of government, to which all Ministers, and not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should devote their minds. I admit that such functions are very distasteful and very difficult, and that it is certainly much easier to nationalise a few hundred firms and think you are doing good. These functions of Government are indeed very difficult—just because, as I have said, we are so far from being a closed economy.
  In this connection I should like to re-echo the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, by mentioning King Canute again. The Government's control, and whatever powers they exercise end at the seashore. The more rigid our system inside our boundaries, the less able we are to adjust ourselves to world price movements; then the more troubles we shall face. I need not dwell on present difficulties caused by the difference between our prices and world prices, although at present the ensuing problem is an extremely difficult one for all our exporters. But the Government cannot act like King Canute, and forbid world prices and their influences to touch us. One way or another, we must adjust ourselves to them. I regard this lack of elasticity, as we now have it, as our greatest danger.
  My complaint, indeed, against Socialism is that it leads to rigidity. Most Socialists do not like the price system, that system which a distinguished Liberal-Socialist economist recently called "the miracle of a properly working pricing system." They do not like the freedom of markets. They think the human brain can manage and plan everything. It cannot. I myself think that Socialism is more easily experimented with in countries like Australia and New Zealand, where there are ample resources and small populations. But it is a totally different thing in this country, where we cannot stand what one might call a rather static society, such as I think exists in those countries I have named, as com

  1103
  pared with one other country that I know well—the United States. We cannot stand that sort of society. We have to make every conceivable effort, and use every kind of free enterprise, in order to keep our great population in possession of a reasonable standard of life.
  With all these questions of central Government control, and the maintenance of elasticity, the nationalisation of iron and steel has nothing whatever to do, except to add further rigidities, more bureaucracy, less freedom and less initiative. I might add that of course the nationalisation of other concerns, which is suggested—such as Tate and Lyle, the Prudential Assurance Company and the Pearl Assurance Company—also has nothing whatever to do with the serious problems that face us. I sincerely trust that, when the Labour Party finally decide to settle their policy on these matters, they will think better of what is now proposed with regard to those companies. When I speak of insurance, I do not know whether it is necessary to declare my interest, but I tell your Lordships that I am chairman of a big insurance company in this country. I can assure the Government that, in proposing the nationalisation of any insurance company at all they are treading on very dangerous ground, if they wish to safeguard the interests of this country, our interest in earning dollars and the interests of great British concerns abroad.
  From reading the debates in another place, I do not think that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Supply claimed that steel nationalisation had in fact anything to do with the real problems of government to which I have referred. To my mind, it has little to do with our modern economic problems. It is almost purely political, a legacy from the past, from Marx and the Webbs. It is a successful slogan which is dear to Socialists, because propaganda for it has, I suppose, contributed to their victory hitherto more than anything else. In the nineteenth century, for reasons which no longer exist, nationalisation was advocated because there was supposed to be too great power in the hands of too few and profits were supposed to be divided too unequally. But those arguments no longer exist. In view
  1104
  of generally held opinions now, it is a curious reflection that, even when nationalisation was first suggested in the nineteenth century, the standard of life was rapidly increasing under private enterprise. The other day I happened to read a book by a great economic historian of Cambridge, Sir John Clapham, in which I found the statement (which I must say surprised me) that between the years 1850 and 1900 the general standard of life of the community, the great mass of people, increased by 75 per cent. In those fifty years it nearly doubled in real value, and, but for two wars, it would be very much higher now than then. The basic fact is that if more wealth is produced, and those who create it are adequately rewarded so that enterprise continues, then consumption must increase among the great masses of the people. Under private enterprise, consumption has greatly increased, and it would, no doubt, go on increasing if there were, in the future, sufficient rewards for enterprise.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Supply used entirely other arguments than those used by those whom I may call Fabians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Mr. Strauss had the hardihood to say that the nationalisation of iron and steel would increase the standard of living; or, in other words, that it was certain the Government would produce more steel by less human effort than is being done now. I have not seen anywhere any argument that could hold water on that score, and I cannot think that any man who knows anything about business would support it. Sir Stafford Cripps argued that there was a direct and inevitable conflict between private owners and public interest. How could that be? It is equivalent to saying that in all private enterprise there is a conflict between private and public interest. If you are a farmer and you produce food, is there a conflict between private and public interest? If there is a steel-maker and he produces steel, is there a conflict between private and public interest? It seems to me to be an assertion without truth, and on that point Sir Andrew Duncan's speech at the time seemed to me unanswerable.
  The main argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based on strategical and planning necessities. On this point I fully agree with what the noble

  1105
  Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said yesterday. If there were sufficient demand, whether from the Government or private interests, how could it be that the steel companies would not produce the steel that was needed if there were the labour and material available to produce it? Would the argument be that, in the United States, unless the Government at Washington controlled the steel industry, that country could not count on sufficient steel being produced to meet its strategical requirements? It seems to me absurd to suppose that the Russian Government must be able to get the steel they want because they control the country's steel industry, whereas the United States may not get the steel it wants because its Government do not control the steel industry there. It is difficult to take seriously an argument like that.
  In my opinion the real steam behind the argument for nationalisation is a continued widespread tendency towards what I may call the levelling process in this country, the hatred of any poppies whose heads are higher than others. I remember when I was at Oxford reading in a book by Sir Henry Maine (a great lawyer of a somewhat earlier time), a prophecy that democracy would never cease levelling until any excrescence above the plain had been levelled. We have gone a long way towards that end, and it seems to me that we are still having to fight against going further.
  There is one argument, perhaps, to be considered in the case for nationalisation of iron and steel, and that is the argument for monopoly. Here I would fully support what Lord Layton said. It is a strange consequence that those who hold the view that there is a monopoly, create a greater and bigger and better monopoly. I deeply regret that the fruitful experiment in the iron and steel industry of seeing whether, in such a great industry, co-operation between the Government and private enterprise could not be worked out is now to be destroyed, because it is perhaps on those lines that we could solve the great problem of this age—namely, where do we draw the line between what the Government do and what private enterprise does. It seems to me tragic that, just when we had an opportunity to try to solve that problem, on a basis that left freedom to industry, we have destroyed it. It is useless to say that in order to get what they want
  1106
  the Government must control an industry and own it as well. I might cite a case in the insurance world that comes to my mind. Take the State of New York, where there is a Superintendent of Insurance. They have very rigid arrangements by which the Superintendent of Insurance follows everything that the companies are doing, insists on certain conditions being carried out and, in general, has a very considerable sphere of control. But that in no way limits the complete freedom of the companies to carry on their own business, to run their business throughout the country. It is in that direction, I think, that we may find a fruitful solution to these problems that now face us.
  I should like to go back for a moment to the strong reasons that I think exist against Governments carrying on the export trade themselves. The strongest reason is that even if one limits oneself to iron and steel companies—and still more if one looks at exports as a whole—our products are infinitely varied. We are not like Russia, where the Government export trade consists of a few bulk products. We export, I do not know whether it is a thousand and one things, or ten thousand and one things. We have to copy still far more countries like Switzerland, in having to live on our skill, our wits and our craftsmanship, and to export whatever we can make to every part of the world. It is impossible to suppose that the Government can carry on such a trade. Moreover, export trade is a matter of personal relationships, and close working agreements with foreign countries. Often English companies own whole businesses abroad, or hold shares or investments in foreign businesses. Export trade, as Lord Layton pointed out, requires the utmost flexibility and quick decisions, qualities which are not particularly shown by Governments. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state that all this applies with still greater force to such great earners of invisible exports as shipping and insurance, both very highly expert trades.
  As Lord Davidson pointed out, Government trading by us provokes Government trading on the other side. If the British Government buy meat, it will be the Argentine Government, not the Argentine packers, who sell it; and business becomes diplomacy. If the British Government own businesses in foreign

  1107
  countries, how shall we view foreign Governments owning businesses in England? Would we prefer the United States Government to own the Vauxhall Company or General Motors? Do we look with pleasure on the Government of one country owning businesses in another country? Do we think that that will bring peace, or will it bring a sword? Those who have lived their lives in what I may call the profit and loss world, have a greater sense of the extreme complexity, the variety, the instability and riskiness of the world at large, than perhaps have academic intellectuals or even great lawyers who, though they may have dealt in profits, have never had to make a loss—except that sometimes they have to consider other people's losses. Why should we suppose that great businesses like steel, requiring expert, detailed, lifelong knowledge, can be controlled on their heads by Ministers without experience—because in the end, whatever this Bill says, the Minister must have the final responsibility. Why should we suppose that the Minister of Food, for instance, burdened with a thousand and one things, can easily conduct and be responsible for great operations in the middle of Africa?
  My conclusions can be briefly stated. In my view, it is essential for our country's interests that our export trade should be conducted by traders and not by the Government. It follows that the exporting interests must necessarily control their own businesses at home. In other words, the Government should not nationalise industries engaged in export. My argument may not apply so strongly to an industry like coal, where the export is a bulk product, though it may be found that it applies even there. It certainly applies to industries where exports are very varied in character. The more the Government extend nationalisation and diminish the area of free markets and free adjustment of our prices to world prices, the more our exporters are going to be ground between rigid conditions at home and, possibly, quite contrary conditions abroad. Your Lordships will be well acquainted with the old saying that one should not swap horses when crossing a stream. We are crossing a very dangerous stream now. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, the Government are intro
  1108
  ducing in a great industry not evolutionary changes but revolutionary changes, without any clear ideas of what they intend. If the wiser elements among them cannot stop this rake's progress, I can only hope that the electorate will be sensible enough to help them.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, it is generally realised, I think, that in productive industry in this country, a major part is played by the medium and small-sized firms, which concentrate, to a large extent, on specialised high-class products, and, in fact, provide a remarkably high proportion of our export trade. It is from the point of view of the firms who produce those specialised products, these small firms, that I want to approach this matter for a few moments this afternoon. Recently, as a result of the close connection which I have with one of the trade organisations which has, I believe, the largest membership of any, and that deals primarily with the smaller firms, I have had the opportunity of ascertaining the reaction of many of these undertakings to this Bill. Their reactions follow closely those which have been described by many of your Lordships during the course of the debate. They have asked certain questions. They have asked the now familiar question: Is this Bill likely to produce more steel? They have asked: Is it likely to produce cheaper steel?
  But one particular question which I do not think has been dealt with quite so fully in the debate so far, and which they have underlined invariably is this: Will the industry under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, retain that flexibility which enables them, as users of its products, to obtain the particular quality they require as and when and where they want it; that flexibility which also encourages producers to continue their constant endeavours to find new methods, new forms, with new characteristics, in order that they may comply with the new specifications that the more progressive industries are continually putting forward? The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, touched on this point to a certain extent yesterday, and he mentioned one or two particular cases in which special requirements were called for by special industries. I need not give a list of similar cases. One

  1109
  could quote many from the chemical industry, from the scientific instrument-making industry, from the motor car industry and so on. But, generally, from this point of view, I find it difficult to regard the future with any feeling of complete assurance.
  The fact of which supporters of this Bill have spoken, that the industry under nationalisation will start off with its various company organisations ostensibly as they are now, to my mind, to use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is no more than a "temporary façade." Once the new Corporation is established it will be bound to be held responsible for everything that goes on in the industry; and in self-defence, if for no other reason, it will be bound to put its fingers more and more into the day-to-day working of the industry. Perhaps it will do this slowly at first, but the movement will gather momentum and, despite the best will in the world on the part of individual members of the Corporation, I am afraid that that flexibility, which these industrialists have mentioned over and over again, will gradually give way to rigidity and a steady slowing up in all its operations. I do not believe that to be mere theoretical surmise. I am convinced that it would be fully borne out by the experience of other nationalised industries. With regard to the particular industry we are discussing, it has long been the case that the success of the engineering and other kindred enterprises has been due to the very intimate association between, and experiments carried out by, individual steel-makers and steel users, a fact which has never applied to anything like the same extent in the case of other industries, such as electricity, gas and transport, which have already been nationalised, though I admit that it did apply, to a certain extent though not to the same extent, in the case of the coal industry.
  The question which one must ask is this: Is that intimate co-operation between producers and users going to be prejudiced? In so far as the same thing applied to the coal industry before, I am afraid that prospects for the future do not look very bright. It is perfectly true, as your Lordships well know, that the Corporation will have the power—as, of course, well they must—to carry
  1110
  on research work. But whether the Corporation will be prepared to use, or indeed will feel fully justified in using, public funds for research along any but the most logical and systematic lines of approach is, to my mind, very much open to question. In support of that opinion, I would ask your Lordships how many really great discoveries have been produced under State auspices in any country in peace time. Possibly there have been a number of great discoveries in war time, but not in peace time.
  Are we in this country, who are, I think, right at the top in the matter of inventions, going to allow the position which we have gained to be lost? In considering that matter we must remember, of course, that there will remain the smaller firms who are substantially outside the scope of the Bill though, inevitably, not unaffected by it, those firms that come within the third column of the Second Schedule and those somewhat larger firms which will be allowed to operate under the licence clauses, Clause 29 and Clause 30. One might at first gain some measure of assurance from the hope that they will have a measure of freedom which would allow them to undertake the bolder or more speculative research, from which, as your Lordships know, really great inventions have sometimes grown. I do not think, however, that one can obtain a great deal of satisfaction down that path, because even if the smaller firms have the financial resources and the existing research resources at their disposal (and this is not at all clear under the Bill), I suggest that their incentive is bound to be damped when they see the reward of their enterprise and any growth which may follow from any success they may achieve, taken away at the discretion of the Minister, himself an interested party.
  What is the alternative open to these smaller firms who wish to develop some invention they have produced and perfected? I suggest that if they are to get a fair reward for their effort and risk, the only alternative for them is to attempt to sell their discovery abroad. I hope I shall not be accused of making an unpatriotic and improper suggestion; because I agree entirely that, particularly to-day when we need all the modern methods obtainable to keep our export trade ahead, to sell an invention abroad

  1111
  would be an unpatriotic move. But who would be responsible for it? Responsibility would surely lie with those who had created the conditions that encouraged such a course. In other words, the responsibility would have to lie with the promoters of this Bill.
  We are all users of steel, in one way or another. The criterion on which this Bill will be judged can be only the availability, quality and price of the kind of steel which is required for a particular job. Anything that may affect the user's right to select can do only harm, and prejudice the chances of the economic recovery of this country. Yet that is a dangerous possibility which I see in this Bill. It is true that in Clause 3 the specific duty is laid upon the Corporation to see that their products:
  "are available in such quantities, and are of such types, qualities and sizes, and are available at such prices, as may seem to the Corporation best calculated to satisfy the reasonable demands of the persons who use those products for manufacturing purposes and to further the public interest …"
  While it is easy to lay down that responsibility, it is quite a different thing to carry it out. In the first place, what exactly is the public interest? Who is to determine it? It is the Corporation, which is itself interested. After all, the public interest cannot be a matter of fact; it must be a matter of individual opinion. This Bill lays on the Corporation far more detailed and, therefore, far more onerous responsibilities than were ever laid on the Iron and Steel Board, responsibilities that could be effectively carried out only by a corporation of supermen, who we all know do not exist.
  There are two further points I want to make which also arise from what I have already said. The first concerns Clause 3. In this clause the Corporation are given wide powers, either through publicly-owned companies or subsidiaries, and although they are not allowed to exercise unfair discrimination in the disposal of their Second Schedule products which may be used for manufacturing purposes, there seem to be no restrictions whatever as regards the disposal of products which have been carried a stage further, or of finished products. This seems to me a dangerous and wholly unfair provision to keep in the Bill, and I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will say something about it. Certainly the
  1112
  point is not covered by Clause 6, as interpreted in the interpretation clause, Clause 58. My last point deals with the question of the licensing of the smaller steel-producing firms. Why is this necessary at all? It surely cannot be that the Government fear that the industry will get too big, when we consider the claims that the Government have made that in the past the steel-owners have kept the industry too small. Surely it is an admission of the possibility, which many of us fear, that this great monopoly is bound to become slower in its reaction and less efficient, and therefore bound to become much more susceptible to competition from smaller outside firms, so that it will need something in the nature of this licensing procedure to protect itself. If that is the answer—and I believe it is—Clauses 29 and 30 are totally incompatible with and indeed contradictory to Clause 3, which lays down that the Corporation are to promote the efficient and economic supply of their products. I can see no reason whatever for this anomaly except one obvious reason—political expediency. That being so, I wholeheartedly support the course the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has suggested to us in this debate.
  4.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, I imagine it would be appropriate to declare that I have an interest in this Bill, even if a somewhat remote one. That interest lies in the fact that I am Chairman of the Finance Corporation for Industry, who have lent something over £50,000,000 to the iron and steel industry. I shall have a few words to say later with regard to the Finance Corporation, which was referred to yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.
  This measure cannot possibly be separated from what, to my mind, is one of the greatest issues that we are up against in this country at the present moment—that is, the whole question of nationalisation and public ownership as opposed to private enterprise. That is a question we all have to keep very much in our minds, because there is a growing feeling that this is a fundamental issue which separates the two great Parties in the State. I think that that is complete nonsense. There are thinking men on both sides who do not take extreme views

  1113
  on this question. There are those who believe in nationalisation who yet see clearly that there are many industries which in no circumstances should be nationalised. There are many who are totally opposed to the general principle of nationalisation who admit that there are certain great activities, such as electricity, water and power undertakings that unquestionably should be under State ownership. It seems to me that this issue has to be clarified. If we are to go forward on the basis that this is the fundamental issue that concerns us all in this country, that will have a disastrous effect upon the industry of the country as a whole, as I hope to make clear in a minute. It seems to me that this is another occasion when your Lordships' House might give a great lead to the people of this country in securing a little more clear thinking up this particular subject.
  Take the example of coal. Coal has been nationalised and, so far as I know, there is nobody in this country who is now saying that coal should be denationalised if there is a change of Government; so far as I know, it is an accepted fact. It is not made sufficiently clear, to my mind, that the coal industry has accepted that it has been nationalised, and there is now no controversy about it. Unless that is made perfectly clear, we have to realise the effects upon our efforts to increase exports and to restore our economic position. Just think of the position of coal. We all recognise that during the nineteenth century, in our struggle for industrial supremacy, we devastated our coal resources, getting the cheapest coal we could to maintain our position. We now have to go back over our tracks and reorganise and modernise that industry. That means the expenditure of millions of pounds, and the Government have undertaken that expenditure. I think most people recognise that private enterprise could not have done that. This expenditure will not give a return for a considerable period, and private enterprise has to get a return for its money; it cannot leave its money indefinitely without return.
  I would remind your Lordships what has happened about this, because if this issue remains in the political arena the Government will not achieve success with their capital expenditure on the coal industry. For the year 1947 the Coal
  1114
  Board operated and showed a loss of £23,000,000. Promptly the anti-nationalisation forces rose up and said: "Look at that; that is the result of the Government controlling an industry." The forces of nationalisation were not going to stand for that from their opponents, and they promptly raised the price. For the first three months of 1948 they showed a profit of £500,000; for the next three months they showed a profit of £1,000,000; and for the third three months they showed a small loss. We have to realise the effect of that brawling between the nationalisers and non-nationalisers. The increase in the cost of coal has put a penalty on every one of our industries, just at the time when we are struggling to increase our exports, when we are running out of the sellers' market which we have enjoyed and are entering upon a buyers' market. The price of coal is put up to offset the attacks of the other side; probably transport will follow in its wake, and if iron and steel is nationalised, I suppose the same thing will happen there.
  It seems to me that we have to recognise that some industries are suitable to be nationalised and some are not; and when those suitable for nationalisation have been nationalised, let us then get on with the job of making sure that the various Boards are doing their job properly. In that atmosphere I feel we would attract back to the industries the men with the knowledge and experience who could really make them successful. We have to view this measure in the light of that situation. Each industry has to be weighed on its merits, and in deciding whether an industry should or should not be nationalised there are three tests which I think ought to be applied. Accepting what was said so well by Lord Layton, that industry has to be run for the maximum benefit of the community as a whole, we should examine the industry from the point of view of, first, whether it could be better run if it were nationalised; secondly, whether if the industry were left in private hands, the necessary finance could be found; and, thirdly, whether those controlling the industry are exploiting the public.
  I want to take those three points in relation to the iron and steel industry. Taking first the question of whether it could be better run by the Government, so far as I know the Government are offering no complaint as to the way the

  1115
  iron and steel industry is being run at the present moment. All its records seem to show a considerable measure of efficiency: production targets have been reached, prices have been kept down and the relations with the workers are admirable. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and of other noble Lords, that there was a period when it was difficult to pay tribute to the way in which the iron and steel industry was run; but at the present time it is being admirably handled.
  During the time of the Coalition Government the Iron and Steel Federation were invited to work out a five to seven year plan for the development of the industry. That they did, but they did not complete their work until there had been a change of Government and the Labour Government came into office. The Labour Government took that plan and proceeded to create the Iron and Steel Board. That Board was composed of seven members, two representing the Federation, or the private employers, two representing the trade unions in the industry, an independent chairman, Sir Archibald Forbes, who did admirable work, Sir Wilfred Ayre, a great shipbuilder, as a representative of the consumers, and Sir Alan Barlow—the last-named being of the Treasury but not sitting as a Government representative. That Board examined the proposals which the Federation had made for the long-term programme. With certain modifications they approved the proposals, and the question then was one of implementing that long-term programme. The implementation is done by the firm or company with a development project submitting it to the Iron and Steel Federation—that is, the employers' body. They examine it to see whether it fits in with the general long-term programme, and whether it is a sound proposition. If the project meets with their approval, it goes on to the Iron and Steel Board, and they consider it in the same way. If they approve the project, it can then go forward—with the one other proviso, that the raising of the necessary finance has to be approved by the Capital Issues Committee.
  There, it seems to me, you have the almost perfect working out of what Lord
  1116
  Brand referred to as co-operation between the Government and industry. It is real co-operation, where the development plans of the industry, because of the close contact, can be so framed as to fall into the general economic policy of the Government. Why the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in introducing this Bill, brushed aside this admirable method as being some sort of temporary expedient that might carry on for a long time is beyond my understanding. It seems to me one of the greatest and best developments that we have had in the industrial life of Britain.
  The second point is: Can the industry obtain the necessary money? From the noble Viscount's speech, I rather gained the impression that he suggested it could not be obtained from private sources. I want to challenge that. The five to seven years' programme, which was approved by the Steel Board, contemplated an expenditure of about £160,000,000 over that period. Because of the severe rise in prices which has taken place, that figure is now estimated to be equivalent to £200,000,000. If there had been no nationalisation rumours, scares and fears, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brand, will agree that a great part of that money could have been raised through the ordinary channels in the City, and from the general public. Because of the scares that had been created, they could not raise any of it.
  Fortunately, however, towards the end of the war there were people with some vision, and they created the Corporation of which I have the honour to be the Chairman, the Finance Corporation for Industry. Because of the war we were running all our machinery to death and could not do any modernisation. It was thought that when the war was over there might be huge plans involving vast sums of money and tying up the money for a long time. Consequently, it was decided to mobilise the credit of the City of London, and this was done by forming the Finance Corporation with a capital of £25,000,000 and borrowing powers of £100,000,000. The mobilisation took place by securing 40 per cent. of that capital from the great insurance companies, 30 per cent. from the big investment trusts and 30 per cent. from the Bank of England. That was done in the days before the Bank was nationalised, and

  1117
  had nothing whatever to do with the Government; the Bank of England and the Governor, then Lord Catto, and before him Lord Norman, were responsible for the idea. I want to stress the fact that the Corporation was set up before the Bank was nationalised. The Bank is still a shareholder, but I want to refute the implication—I do not know whether it was suggested in the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill—that there was some sort of Government institutional character about this Finance Corporation for Industry—there was nothing of the sort. There is not the slightest control. The Bank, as I say, is a minority shareholder. I constantly saw the late Governor, Lord Catto, and I have several times seen the present Governor; but on no occasion has either one or the other endeavoured to put upon me any pressure as to what course my Corporation should follow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): I would like to make it quite clear that at no time did I suggest that there was any link-up between the Government and the Corporation, or that the Government in any way influenced the Corporation. I dealt with the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with regard to a certain amount of the finance found by the Bank of England. Of course, whatever amounts have been promised to the iron and steel industry, the major portion has not yet been paid, owing to the development. I well remember the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Anderson, announcing the formation of the Finance Corporation of Industry, and the general impression which was left upon my mind—and am sure also upon that of a number of my colleagues in another place at that time—was that industries who could raise money in the open market would be expected so to do, and were not expected to use the facilities of the Finance Corporation. I had that in mind when I made the statement yesterday.
  VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. The facts are as he has stated them. When the Corporation was formed, Sir John Anderson, as a Conservative, gave every assistance to it, I think mainly owing to the fact that it was private enterprise. I can understand any misunderstandings
  1118
  which have arisen, because I spent the first six months as Chairman of the Corporation trying to persuade the City that we were not a Government instrument, and that we were not owned by the Government. There has been general confusion on all sides. It is true that we do not find any moneys where they can be found through the existing channels; and I can assure your Lordships that that is an extremely embarrassing position for the Corporation to be in. When somebody brings the most attractive proposal we have to say: "I am sorry, but that is too easy for us; go and get somebody else to do it." But that is the position which exists. I say, without any question, that the whole of the £160,000,000 could have been found, and it could have been found even when it went up to £200,000,000.
  To start with, we have borrowing powers of £100,000,000, but I am perfectly confident that by the system which has been created, with the consortium of the banks finding the money at the lowest possible rate of interest, so that we can make the advances in the initial stages of any new enterprise at the lowest possible cost to the industry, that sum could have been found; and, if necessary, we could have gone far beyond the £200,000,000. I can express that only as my view—the Government may have another—but I think I should have the general support of the City of London with regard to that.
  The third point is that of exploiting the public. I do not think that there is any suggestion to-day that the iron and steel industry is doing anything of the sort. Even if it had any desire to do so, with the control which the Government now have through the Steel Board there would not be the slightest chance of its doing anything to the detriment of the general interests of the public.
  Summing up, then, the three tests which have to be applied are: whether you would achieve better production under nationalisation; whether it is necessary to nationalise it because the finance cannot be found, and whether it is necessary to nationalise it to prevent exploitation of the people. I say that on all three grounds the case fails, and I believe it will be disastrous for the industry of this country if this measure goes through, and the iron and steel industry is

  1119
  nationalised. I said in the beginning that I am completely in sympathy with the nationalisation of the coal mines. I believe the nationalisation of the railways was necessary. I have the gravest doubts as to whether the Government were wise in nationalising road transport, but I am absolutely certain that it would be a fatal blunder to nationalise this industry.
  Even if the case against it were not so strong, I would urge that, with all the difficulties which have been created by reason of this measure in regard to the development plans that are going forward, it would be a fatal thing to do. I think we should pay some tribute to those who thought of the Finance Corporation for Industry. If it had not been for that Corporation there would have been a hideous hiatus between the time when the Bill was brought out and the vesting date, which is not until next May. Quite apart from the Amendment which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, indicated yesterday will be moved by the Opposition, I think that even the Government themselves see that the vesting date would have had to be put back to September or October. In the interval, but for the Corporation, all schemes would have had to be held up because the Government had not the authority to take over the industry. They could have taken the borrowing powers, but the schemes would not have come forward from the companies. So everything would have been held up but for the fact that the Finance Corporation were able to come into the ring. We have taken our courage into our hands and agreed to find the monies to keep this developmental plan going until this issue is decided. That, I believe, is a very great service.
  I should also like to express my thanks to the Government for the fact that they have inserted Clause 14 in the Bill as a new provision, which has made it possible to do that which we felt was simply our duty: to try to stop the development plans being halted during this interim period. Even if the case against nationalising this industry were infinitely weaker than it is, I find from my contacts that it is catastrophic that the disturbance, confusion and general uncertainty which this Bill has created should have been brought into the major industry of the country just at a time
  1120
  when all our efforts are needed to try to get out of our present troubles.
  5.11 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am the twenty-third speaker; and by all the rules of the game I should be racing the horse and roller to the middle. Without meaning any disrespect to the noble Viscount opposite, I wish I had been the thirty-third speaker, because I regret to notice how few noble Lords have spoken on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether that is through lack of conviction about this Bill, or whether the delicacy of the arguments have to be left in only very skilled hands. One of those two seems to me to be the only possible explanation, but in either event I think it is regrettable.
  I wish the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, were here, because I am going to mention two points which he made in his speech. He mentioned that he thought this Bill would produce a great many opportunities for technicians. Well, my friends tell me that technicians in the electrical industry, so far from having great new opportunities, may have perhaps fifty pounds a year more, but they would sooner be back in the "bad old days" of private ownership, when there was less frustration to their new ideas. The other point of Lord Kershaw's which I was going to take up was his statement that he regarded Socialism and nationalisation as a defence against Communism. I think that when the relevant department of the Cominform is reading this debate a cynical smile will pass over the face of the clerk-in-charge, and he will surely mark the noble Lord's dossier in the archives of that department with an "S" for "Sucker," or whatever the Russian equivalent is. If we had had more speakers from the Government side they might perhaps have been able to explain to us why it is necessary that the "experiment" of nationalisation, about which Mr. Gaitskell recently spoke to the Electrical Trades Union, should be carried out on such a gigantic scale. Surely, if it is really an experiment, we have the "laboratory" of coal, and we could have kept clear of the rest until the experiment in coal had shown results.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in a most amusing speech, referred to the Bill as an Iron and Steel Bill. But of course this Bill has nothing to do with the iron

  1121
  and steel industry; it is dealing only with certain selected portions of the iron and steel industry. I believe, therefore, that the whole of the noble Lord's remarks were irrelevant to the debate. When one is considering an industry for nationalisation one has to consider into which of three categories it would fall: would it be run better by the State; would it be run equally well by the State; or would it be run worse by the State? At the moment I can think of no industry that could be run better by the State; I am at a loss to think of one that would not be run worse by the State. In the case of steel, the best that noble Lords opposite could claim for it is that it would be run no worse and no better by the State, but that the existence of this huge basic industry in private hands is a constant challenge to the Socialist State, and that it must go.
  Let us for a moment look at this thesis. We must first admit that nationalisation means ultimate responsibility to Parliament. It is true that Ministers "pass the buck" on every occasion to the Boards; but on matters of grave importance, on which they can give directions to those Boards, I do not think that they can shirk their ultimate responsibility. Indeed the lack of ground-nuts and the paucity of coal are explored very fully in Parliament from time to time. This means that the Board must pursue policies ultimately defensible in Parliament; or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Boards must not pursue policies that are indefensible in Parliament. From this flows an important consequence. Every nationalised industry must, like the Civil Service, keep careful and complete records of everything it does and its reasons for doing it. It must always be prepared for an inquest. This means cumbersome consultation on everything it does—and, of course, frightful delays.
  Now look at the other side of the matter. How is a great business built up and run? I suppose it would be true to say that in addition to the qualities of integrity and hard work, the thing that counts is the ability to take the right decisions at the right time: when to plan for greater output; where and when to build new works; when to reduce prices, and so on. It is the cumulative right decisions of that sort that produce successful and great businesses. The
  1122
  leaders of private industry have to take those decisions, but they need not justify them individually to anyone. They cannot avoid some bad decisions, but if they make too many bad decisions profits suffer, and they have to face their shareholders. They certainly do not need to have a reason on the file for all their decisions and the process of arriving at those decisions. Therefore it is perfectly possible for them to take the unobvious and unpopular decision, if their minds lead them that way. They do not have to defend the unpopularity. Moreover they can act with speed, which means that they can act by instinct and not by reason—and the instincts of a good business man are worth far more than a chain of reasoning on a file.
  That is where private ownership has an immense advantage over State ownership—particularly where industry has to meet movements of markets or of fashions. The Boards must have a reason on the file, and that reason must be defended in Parliament. Ultimately, it is the unobvious which is indefensible, and the obvious which is always defensible—even if it is wrong. You plead the weather—if one of your colleagues has not made a copyright of that alibi. If any proof of this is wanted, take the case of the Minister of Supply himself. His family run, or have run, a large and successful business from which they are reported to have made a considerable fortune, supplying base metals to the industries of this country at the high world prices. In doing this, they were able to give full rein to their remarkably acute instincts. Are the performances of Mr. Strauss, the Minister of Supply, in supplying the same metals to the same industries, going to be equally profitable to his Ministry or to the industry? I very much doubt it. Mr. Strauss, as a Minister, has to follow reason with an explanation on the file, and he is not at liberty to employ the very sound instincts which he doubtless has inherited in these matters.
  It would be difficult to imagine an industry which could survive those handicaps. Even the Post Office, it seems to me, has never had the telephone facilities which the instincts of its engineers must have told them would be necessary, but which they have never been able to justify to the Treasury in the cold light of reason. For these reasons, I believe the steel industry

  1123
  to be utterly unsuitable for public ownership. It is dependent upon the higgling of the markets, both here and overseas. There are hard and uncomfortable decisions to be made. Decisions which must involve the Minister in difficulties in Parliament, must be taken, and they have to be taken quickly. I do not believe that they will be taken. The profit motive may be an unfortunate outcome of the Fall of Man, but the vote motive is one which will serve the community less well. If we want to get rid of both, we end up in Totalitaria. And that is precisely where some of the protagonists of this Bill want to see us.
  5.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches, Lord Rennell and Lord Layton, have already spoken on our behalf and have presented powerful arguments against this Bill. Other noble Lords from other parts of the House have done the same, speaking with a wealth of knowledge of the industrial and financial aspects of the steel industry which I make no claim to possess. Therefore, my observations will be brief. I have listened with close attention to the speeches of the spokesmen of the Government, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, to see what specific answers they would give to the various heads of indictment that have been brought against this Bill. I am bound to say, with perfect candour and sincerity, that I found those replies quite unconvincing. I am sure that that was not because of any lack of talent on their part in the presenattion of a case. If they had had a case, they would have put it forcibly; if they were not forcible, it was because they had no case to present.
  In other industries which have been nationalised, the whole situation has been carefully examined beforehand, usually by impartial Commissions and Committees. Evidence has been taken, Blue Books have been presented to Parliament, the matter has been studied and it has been the subject of widespread public discussion; but in this case Parliament is asked to decide regarding one of the most vital industries, on a case which is wholly undocumented. It is said that the industry is subject to monopolistic practices. It is true that, in some
  1124
  respects, it does have the characteristics of a monopoly, or a quasi-monopoly. The question then arises whether that leads to abuse or not, and, if it does lead to abuse, what is the best remedy—whether it should be nationalisation or whether it should be some other form of control. This House and the other House only last year dealt with this very matter and passed the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiries and Control) Act. By general assent, with the support of all the Parties, it was determined that a procedure should be set up for inquiring into precisely such a case as this. Why has that procedure not been invoked? If the Government have conclusive reasons to show that the steel industry is a monopoly and subject to the defects of monopolies, why have they not submitted that case to the very Tribunal which they themselves have set up for that purpose? One can only believe that it was because they could not have faith in what the verdict of the Tribunal might be.
  How often have I heard the Leader of the House, Viscount Addison, in debates on these matters, assert that it is not true to say that the Labour Government are engaged in a policy of indiscriminate nationalisation, regardless of the merits of each case. He has repeatedly affirmed on the contrary—and he now assents to what I am saying—that the burden of proof rests upon those who propose nationalisation, and that they have to establish reasons in each particular instance why it should be done. To that I have answered on previous occasions, and I must do so again to-day, by quoting the Objects of the Party to which he belongs and on which the present Government is based, which in unmistakable terms deal specifically with this very point. The official copy of the Labour Party Constitution and Standing Orders, which is obtainable from their head office, states in Clause 4, as one of the Party Objects:
  "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
  Therefore, their procedure has been to state the conclusion first and then to try to find justifications for it afterwards.

  1125
  That is what they are doing in this instance.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, is not in his place. I sent him an intimation that I was going to call in aid an observation he made. In his speech this afternoon the noble Lord stated, or rather re-stated, this very clearly and frankly. He said: "The nation has returned a Socialist Government to power. A Socialist Government must not be untrue to the principles they have adumbrated for a generation." This is our assertion to which I invite the Leader of the House to reply, if he can. We say that they are proceeding upon the basis of a foregone conclusion which was adopted years ago and is now being applied step by step, in instance after instance, whenever opportunity offers. There is no question whether there is a good case or a bad case. The fact is that iron and steel is a basic industry and therefore, as a basic industry, it must, under the Objects of the Labour Party, in some form or another be nationalised. Having adopted that as one of their Objects, they have occupied a position from which, as it has been said on a different occasion,
  "they can neither advance with safety nor retreat with honour."
  It is that principle which, more than any other, divides the two progressive Parties, Liberals and Labour, in this country. This industry, this Bill, is a test case. Here the issue becomes for the first time crystal clear and is a matter of practical and immediate politics, because in the other examples a case has been made out. Recently the railways, electricity and gas, have all been nationalised, with the assent not only of Socialists but of other sections of the community. The coal mines were perhaps a boundary case, but on the whole a strong case can be made out for their nationalisation. The question had been fully and repeatedly examined on many occasions. These were all industries where comparatively little risk had been involved in the conduct of the industry. They are not wholly standardised industries—certainly not the coal mines—but to a great extent they are standardised. The question of export trade does not arise in the cases of the railways, electricity and gas; and with regard to the coal mines the dominant position of our export trade in coal
  1126
  involves little matter of risk. The steel industry, however, is entirely different from all those.
  As my noble friend Lord Layton pointed out clearly to-day, there is no industry which in itself is more unsuited to nationalisation than iron and steel. It is continually changing. Every generation the whole set-up of the industry differs from what it was twenty, thirty or forty years before. Risks have to be taken at every step. The whole body of our export trade, directly or indirectly, depends upon the success and efficiency of the steel industry. Management is the whole essence of the matter. It is not a question of rules and regulations that can be laid down by a Board. Quick decisions have to be taken every hour and every day, and if those decisions are wrong the business is inefficient and loss is sustained. Profit and loss are the stimulus and the test of efficiency. My noble friend Lord Layton pointed out these differences, and that it was essential that the managers of the steel industries should maintain their independence and initiative and, above all, freedom in choice of personnel.
  But then the Government say, "Oh, well, the industry will go on the same as before. As a rule, they will have the same directors. The same people will be managers." The same names will be over the shop door, so to speak. But from this time onwards, as soon as this Bill passes, there will be one difference which is absolutely fundamental; and that is that responsibility will be divorced from ownership. The companies may remain nominally, but all their stocks and shares are pooled into one common Government stock, and no one management will have any direct interest in its own success. By this Bill the Government are taking the mainspring out of the mechanism of this most vital industry, on which so many other industries depend and with which our foreign exchange balances are so greatly concerned. It is, to my mind, a most dangerous speculation, and there is no reason for it, except the reason to be found in Clause 4, subsection (4) of the Objects of the Labour Party. That having been laid down, the Party, feeling in honour bound to their Socialist supporters to carry through those objects, the People, Lords and Commons all have to submit.

  1127
  To my mind this Bill has in this debate been riddled by argument. The Liberal Party oppose this Bill. They have done so in another place, they do so in this House, and they will do so in the country. We concur in the course proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and we will support and push to the end the Amendment which he is about to propose—namely, to postpone the date when this Bill shall come into effect in order that the whole matter may be submitted to the judgment of the nation.
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we are coming to the end of this two-day debate, and according to the mathematical calculation of my noble friend Lord Hawke I am the twenty-fifth speaker to take part. I am sure that all sides of the House appreciate the knowledgeable and wise contributions that have been made from every quarter. What struck me so forcibly, and it may also have struck some of your Lordships, was that so many of the speeches which, to use the words of Lord Samuel, riddled the argument in favour of the Bill, were delivered by noble Lords who do not have any strong Party affiliation, who have only the interests of the country at heart and who see grave dangers to our nation through this proposal. Even though I am the twenty-fifth speaker, I think I would prefer to be the twenty-fifth rather than the twenty-sixth, the Leader of the House, because he has a heavy task in front of him if he is going to answer some of the big questions of importance and is in any way to endeavour to redress the heavy balance of argument against the Bill which has been put forward from every quarter.
  My Lords, the twenty-fifth speaker can find little new to say. Nevertheless, with your Lordships' permission I would like to dot some of the "i's" and cross some of the "t's" of the main speech made on behalf of the Government by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Hall. If I may say so, he made a most charming speech, based on assertion, interlaced with accusation, in place of reason and argument. His main point was that the power of the steel industry, economically and strategically, was so great that it should be in the hands of Parliamentary control. I would like to examine that for a moment. On the strategical aspect he
  1128
  said that for strategic reasons the Government cannot leave the steel capacity of this nation to private enterprise. To support that the noble Viscount used the analogy of the Royal Navy. I have his words here. He said:
  "We cannot again leave it, as we did before the last war, to the chances of the interests of any other than the State to determine whether or not we have adequate capacity, suitably located, to meet our defence needs. In the early days of our sea power, the Navy itself had to be transferred from some system of private ownership to the State … So to-day it is essential for our defence needs that the State should own a large part of the steelmaking resources of this country, so that we can be assured that the defence position is always safeguarded."
  That is a powerful argument for nationalising the mercantile marine; but the nationalisation of the mercantile marine is one of those things that the Government have given an assurance they are not going to undertake. It seems to me that if the noble Viscount wants to use that argument he should use it in connection with something mo appropriate than the steel industry. It would be interesting to know whether he can justify its use in connection with the steel industry, and whether the Government can at the same time retain their political integrity and deny the nationalisation of the mercantile marine. Perhaps we may hear something more about that later.
  My Lords, I would like to ask this question of the Government: When has the industry, in peace or in war, not responded to the call of the Government of the day for defence purposes—even to keeping the old plants alive at the Government's request, for which we are now reviled on political grounds in the introduction of this Bill? Mr. Churchill has testified that in two wars the industry has never failed any Government, and I would say that we on this side of the House who object to this strategic argument can claim to be as good guardians of the security interests of this country as, at any rate, the Party opposite. Perhaps some of those who advanced this strategic argument, some of the members of the Cabinet, not excluding the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, might search their own consciences on their speeches and their attitudes to defence matters before the war before they invoke security in support of this Bill at the present time.

  1129
  I want next to take an argument which was advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and supported by Lord Morrison, that this is a monopoly that must be broken down. Lord Morrison said that this industry is "the private property of the few." Let us examine, for a moment, this question of "the private property of the few." I understand that there is some £380,000,000 invested in the steel industry. Take six big companies, and you will find that half their capital is in bundles of less than a thousand shares. One-third of the companies' shareholders have less than 500 shares. There is one particular firm I could name in which the shareholders just about outnumber the employees: there are approximately 16,000 employees and 16,000 shareholders. So that industry is not owned by a few. There might be something in the charge if made accurately—I could argue that, but I will not do so—that it is managed by a few; but it is a complete and erroneous fallacy to say that it is owned by a few people.
  In order to save time, I want to accept, so far as I can, the Government's arguments. So for the moment, let me accept the Government argument that the Bill as proposed is not going to give the Government total ownership of the industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, yesterday showed that in respect of the heavy forging industry the Government are going to take 45 per cent. and that 55 per cent. will remain free. In the matter of steel wire the Government are to take 60 per cent., leaving 40 per cent. to remain free. At the present time some 2,000 firms are under the supervision of the Iron and Steel Board, and the Government are going to acquire, according to the figures of Lord Hall, some 250. Therefore, the claim that the Government are acquiring the whole of this industry to break down a monopoly is not substantiated by facts. The dictum of both Lord Hall and Lord Morrison was that Government control must be linked to Government ownership. I think that was answered very effectively yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in a speech in which he gave us the benefit of his great knowledge and experience, and also to-day by Lord Brand and Lord Bruce, who showed that in peace and war since 1932 there has been evolved in this industry a system of public supervision in respect of policy, in respect of prices and in respect
  1130
  of markets, and that there has been no dictation by any monopoly in respect of these particular and important activities.
  May I ask your Lordships to think back for a moment to some three or four days ago, when we debated the Irish question in this House, and the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said this:
  "We are perhaps an illogical people but I believe that we have great gifts of tolerance and of compromise."
  In a curious way we have evolved a technique of the amalgam of private enterprise and State control, and it seems to me that when the noble and learned Viscount pleads for tolerance and for understanding in respect of Eire, and says that we as a nation have this peculiar quality of finding a middle course, often indefensible in theory but working in practice (unlike Socialism, which is often indefensible in theory and unworkable in practice), it is not wrong to invoke that same plea in respect of our own people and our own systems. The Government are now going to sweep all this away because of this political figment of imagination that there is some wicked monopoly. Our charge from this side of the House is that the public interest will not be protected from an alleged monopoly—whose existence we deny—by the Government creating another great, powerful monopoly of reality hedged about and protected by restrictive legislation.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said (it is one of the worst things about being the twenty-fifth speaker that someone else always makes the points which you are going to make and you have to put your pencil through them one after another), why do the Government not put this industry before the machinery of their own creation for dealing with monopolies? The Commission of the recently passed Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act could judge this industry fairly and publicly, and the country could then see what an impartial Tribunal, set up by the Government, thought of the charge of monopoly. Now, by State monopoly, the consumers and users of steel are going to have no protection in this country except the rather toothless one of the Consumers' Council. In this monopoly, of course, the power is to rest with the political Minister, and, through the

  1131
  political Minister, with Parliament. Nominally, there is talk that the boards of directors will remain independent, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and other speakers have pointed out, there is going to be one owner, one master—the Minister. When James I wanted the judges to be the servants and handmaidens of the Crown his ally, Lord Chancellor Bacon, said:
  "Let the Judges be Lions—but Lions under the Throne."
  Now, if there are to be steelmasters, the Minister of Supply says: "Let there be steelmasters under my office desk where I can control them."
  I want for a moment to pass to the charge of inefficiency in this industry. Lord Hall was careful to say that he did not ally himself with that charge. Lord Kershaw was careful to say the same thing. I would recommend Lord Kershaw to a reading course—I would recommend him to read: Let Us Face the Future. If he reads Let Us Face the Future he will see that the justification for bringing in this Bill rests upon a charge of inefficiency. Let Us Face the Future refers to
  "Private monopoly which has maintained high prices and kept inefficient high-cost plants in existence …"
  and says
  "Only if public ownership replaces private monopoly can the industry become efficient."
  There seems to be some difference of opinion between the Minister and his supporter, Lord Kershaw, and the official writings which come from his own Party machinery. Mr. Aneurin Bevan has said that it was because between the wars the steel owners had made money by not making steel that there was now a shortage. A charge against this industry of inefficiency is made, if not in this House, certainly in Labour Party circles. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments put forward so clearly and positively by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and others, who have refuted that charge of inefficiency. I think that all sensible men are on common ground here: first, that in output the steel industry has achieved its target of 100 per cent. pre-war export; secondly, that wages have increased to a figure which compares not unfavourably with wage increases in
  1132
  other industries; thirdly, that industrial relations are good; and fourthly, that money has been raised and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, said, could still be raised by private enterprise for the re-equipment programme.
  We ask, where in this Bill is there any prospect of increased efficiency and lower prices, as compared with what private enterprise has achieved? It has been pointed out that, since nationalisation, the price of coal has increased on an average by 6s. 6d. a ton; since nationalisation gas has increased in price, and electricity charges have also been increased. There are no signs in this Bill that the products of the steel industry will be produced at lower prices, and we fear very much that steel will follow the course of other nationalised industries. There is no description of any new plan in this Bill to achieve the declared Government purpose of improving on the present efficiency level. I think we are entitled to press the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on this point: Where is the plan which shows that the industry will produce more efficiently and more cheaply than at the present time? If the noble Viscount can answer that question, he will go a long way to reassure those of us who fear the future.
  The Times is certainly not a paper always favourable to the Conservative Party, but it is a very impartial and authoritative organ. I would remind your Lordships of what the industrial correspondent of The Times said recently:
  "In what way and by how much will costs be reduced by nationalisation? How much more will costs be reduced with nationalisation than without? Will production and productivity rise or fall? Will the workers be more or less exigent? What principle will be applied to prices and investments? How will nationalisation make it more possible to apply the right principles in the right way than under private ownership and management?"
  The writer went on to say:
  "The Government have not answered those questions because they do not know the answers."
  That was written before this Bill came to your Lordships' House. I submit that the questions still remain unanswered.
  All we have now is a new view enunciated by Sir Stafford Cripps, that

  1133
  losses in nationalised industries do not matter. We are used to being told that the test of nationalisation is efficiency and the ability of nationalised industry to pay its way, but this is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now says:
  "The honourable Member talks about nationalisation at a loss. It is quite a false conception to consider that it is necessary to make a profit out of any industry, except under a capitalist system. It is not necessary to make a profit out of industry except under a capitalist system, … if it was decided that coal should be provided to industry without charge, it might be that that would suit our economy. There is nothing wrong in it if we like to decide to do it."
  That seems a "new deal" in regard to nationalised industry. It seems to me to make absurd nonsense of Clause 31 of this Bill, which says that the industry must balance its accounts, one year with another. I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—if he does not answer me to-day, we may see action taken on the Order Paper—whether the Government are to move to omit Clause 31 of the Bill. If they leave that clause in, then, by inference, they are denying the words of their own Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  So far the Government have put up a sorry case for the Bill to this House. I do not want to say more than two sentences on the question of compensation. The first one, which will gain approbation from all quarters of your Lordships' House, is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, on his maiden speech and to say how much we hope that we shall hear him on many future occasions. The second is to say, as regards the substance of that speech, that I have never heard the case of the unfairness and duplicity (I use the word advisedly) of the Government in their dealings in regard to the taking of Stock Exchange prices, after having asked for voluntary restriction of dividends, more strongly, simply and powerfully put. I am sure that all noble Lords on this side of the House, and indeed the public outside, wait to hear to-night some comment on that speech from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
  The true reason for this Bill was given by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. It has been brought in to fulfil a political purpose which is to be achieved regardless of the national well-being. The case for it has not been argued on the ground
  1134
  of helping export trade. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Brand, pointed out, it is likely to do just the opposite. The case has not been argued on the ground of cheaper production or greater production, nor has it been argued on the ground of contributing to the national recovery. I submit that the onus is on the Government to show that they can do better with an industry already doing well than that industry could do if left to itself. We are in great danger of sacrificing things of real national value on the altar of political opportunism.
  At this eleventh hour, on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, and I believe on this occasion I can speak also for noble Lords below the gangway, I appeal to the Government to accept our Amendment postponing the operation of this Bill until October, 1950, and the consequential Amendment on the vesting date. I deny that the Government have a mandate for this Bill, although they claim one. I ask the Government to produce a plan which will be of benefit to the nation or, alternatively, to send back to the nation the proposals they have now brought forward, and let the people have a chance of knowing what these proposals are and of giving their verdict upon them in a democratic way. No member of this House and no member of another place could take any exception to that procedure.
  6.0 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, before I come to make as well as I can a general reply, I should like to answer two points put to me by the last two speakers. In the first place, the noble Lord who has just spoken animadverted on certain statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have not had notice of this, so I can make only a provisional comment. I gather, however, that the point was that there might be socialised undertakings that did not pay a profit; and, therefore, having put provision in this Bill for nationalising this industry requiring the industry to pay its way, we are, somehow or other, contradicting ourselves. I would ask the noble Lord to give further thought to that proposition. When has he ever received a dividend from roads or education? I ask that question, and leave the noble Lord to consider it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: One is a trading concern and the other is not.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord said nothing about trading concerns. Roads at one time were a trading concern, and we still see the remains of those archaic blockhouses where everybody had to pay a shilling, or some other sum, to go through. The system was a dismal and disastrous failure, and that is why the State took it over. But it never paid a dividend—of course not. At any rate, that deals with that particular point.
  I come now to the question put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I will return later to some of his comments on the Bill now before the House. This particular point related to some strange ill-association which he found between the programme of the Labour Party and this Bill. The noble Viscount called our attention to the fact that Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution and Standing Orders states as one of the Party Objects:
  "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
  Having quoted that, so far as I understood him, the noble Viscount suggested that what the Labour Party had done was to come to a conclusion first and invent the reasons after, or words to that effect. I would point out to the noble Viscount that he is entirely wrong. That objective of the Labour Party was the result of generations of struggle. It was discussed millions of times, and was the result of infinite deliberation, much suffering, and endless argument; and it was the embodiment of the aim of the people who shared those views. But it has no relation to this Bill whatever, except in the one sense, that this particular application of that principle which it seeks to make does apply—and, in my view, properly applies—to the industry we are now considering. With those two preliminary observations, I will now address myself more closely to the general debate.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Viscount has not really answered my point; perhaps I did not make it clear.
  1136
  My point was that on the one hand he says that a case has to be made out, on merits, for each particular proposal for nationalisation, and if the case is not made out the industry ought not to be nationalised; while on the other hand, the Objects of his Party declare that every one of the main industries must be nationalised, irrespective of the merits of the particular case.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The objectives of the Party were arrived at and defined as I have explained, and we do not depart from them. But we know very well that, by the process of democratic government, we can give effect to our aims only gradually. That is one of the merits of our system of society and political government. I have nothing to retract from what I said, and I think I took the noble Viscount's point perfectly well.
  I now return to the general debate. We have had a great many speeches and a good many of them have not dealt very closely with the Bill. But, still, that does not matter.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: To which side of the House are you referring?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: But there is this to be said for them: that if any member of His Majesty's Government was inclined to "think of himself more highly than he ought," this debate will have had a most chastening influence. I accept that. I also note the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, about the vesting date. My only comment at the moment is that we take note of what he says.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not merely the vesting date, but the bringing into operation of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Marquess has explained his point, and I think I fully understand what he has in mind. All I say at the moment is that we take note of it. Then the noble Marquess, in an unusual passage, went on to say—I must refer to this thus early—that this Bill was what he called "ballyhoo." I will read his actual words, because they relate closely to what I am going to say. The noble Marquess said:
  "That motive is purely political,"—
  that is, the motive of this Bill—
  "and all these elaborate economic arguments about the necessity for increasing production

  1137
  and the closer integration of the industry and so on are pure 'ballyhoo,' to deceive the public."
  I have not had time to look up the definition of "ballyhoo," but I take it that its meaning is generally understood. Let us have a look at this for a moment. The noble Marquess's advice later on to the House not to reject this Bill on Second Reading was largely based upon the fact that it was an ingredient in the Labour Party's programme which was put before the nation in 1945. That, I think, was the basis, and I think a very good basis, of the noble Marquess's advice. If that is so, the "ballyhoo" was invented in 1945. How is it that the noble Marquess has only just discovered it? This was put before the people in 1945, without any apology—and one noble Lord opposite read an extract from the programme. I take it that this is the explanation: the Conservative Party, as its name implies, has always been behind the times. It does not realise things until some time after-they have happened. If it were not for the tragic mistake of not realising at the time what opportunity is, we should never have had the miserable history of Ireland. That is the responsibility of the Conservative Party in not appreciating the situation. I gather it is only now that it has dawned on the noble Marquess that this "ballyhoo," whatever it may be—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Marquess is not really dealing with the point I made at all.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am coming to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount is coming to it—
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am coming back later to the actual words. What I am interested in at the moment is in trying to explain to myself why it is that this discovery has only just been made, four years after the event. That is the only point I am seeking to unravel at the moment. If your Lordships will look at this particular sentence, you will notice in a part of it the words
  "… and the closer integration of the industry and so on are pure 'ballyhoo' …."
  In this connection my mind is carried back to the events to which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, referred.
  1138
  Here let me say a little about the record of this industry, and I do so with complete good will. There has been a remarkable integration of this industry, and it has proceeded out of the necessities of the case. Now the British Iron and Steel Federation, in the time Lord Layton was thinking about, was something completely undreamed of. I know what his impressions are, but I know that the British iron and steel authorities were concerned intimately with the Ministry of Munitions from 1915 onwards and the industry was in a very deplorable condition then. That was repeated afterwards. But as time has gone by there has been much closer integration, and now a number of noble Lords have come very far in our direction as to the necessity of a great measure of national control. I should like to pay a tribute to Sir Andrew Duncan and many of his able lieutenants. They have done a great job of work for this industry and, I think, with the good will of the industry as a whole. But they have no power—except by ways in which they can influence finance corporations and in other similar ways—of reconciling the progress of the industry to national necessities. Just look at one or two of them at the moment. They are doing exceedingly well, and without any reservation whatever I would like to share in the tributes to the good work the industry is doing. But the fact is that everywhere we look we find ourselves confronted even now with the limiting factor of the shortage of steel. Programme after programme at the present moment is being cut because there is not enough steel. Whilst it is true to say that the industry has attained the target set for it this year—and it has made a very great effort and has done a very successful job of work—it is still far from meeting national requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, in a speech which was (shall I say?) of his usual cheerfulness to those of us who sit on these Benches, omitted one consideration. He knows that we are having to send some gold to Belgium. Why is that? Largely because we are having to buy steel. If it were appropriate, I could give a number of similar illustrations of how the shortage of steel, notwithstanding the splendid effort of the steel industry, is limiting national output.
  Now we come to another point. I have been told that if this Bill were

  1139
  passed it might jeopardise our export trade. The fact is, as we all know, that even now some branches of the export trade which are vital—for instance, the provision of capital machinery to many parts—are restricted by the lack of steel. It is because of that that we cannot take orders from different parts of the world. I have known, and could quote cases, where in times past—and I am not wishing to go back too much to past history—the industry has not responded to the demands of home manufacturers requiring steel. In one well known case they had to buy the steel from Belgium. Whilst this new Federation has done very well, you have no guarantee, and we have no guarantee, that it will have the authority and power, as circumstances develop, to adjust or control this industry or to develop it in accordance with the needs of the State.
  And there is another consideration which I am bound to mention, although it is a very painful thing to say. Some of us who understood what was happening in this industry know that in the bad times decisions were taken by steelmasters to close down this or that works, regard being had to what profit they were or were not making out of that particular concern—and I am not blaming them for that—and with no vision of national necessity. There was nobody whose business it was to take stock of national necessities. Many and many a miserable story could be told of the wretchedness and unemployment which was caused in many places because of the unhappy consequence which necessarily attached to that method of conducting this great industry. Now it does not follow—and the noble Lord, Lord Brand, would, I am sure, be with me in this—that the condition of the sellers' market is going to continue a long time.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It has gone already.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: If that is so, it should reinforce the point I am now going to make. It may well be that considerable parts of our steel production will be, and should be, directed to internal requirements which are now being held up or restrained because we are using the steel for export purposes. It will be necessary to have some national body to control it if we are going to divert our
  1140
  steel into, say, internal development plans which will provide for the worst times. As a matter of fact, if you review this case, good as the Iron and Steel Federation is, thinking of the wide range of national necessities that are with us now and which may arise in the future the conclusion is inevitable that this business must be controlled by some State organisation. It seems to me that while noble Lords accept the necessity for a large measure of control, the only people who are not to be allowed to exercise it are the representatives of the people! I object to that.
  Now I will come to one or two items in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, asked me a very proper question as to whether the Corporation would be a holding corporation or an operating corporation. It will be a holding corporation. You see in Clause 2, that the holding corporation will have certain powers to undertake research and provide certain common services—powers which of course any body of that type would have. It cannot be an operating corporation without the specific consent of the Minister.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of the Minister—not of Parliament?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: "Of the Minister" is right. You can discuss that point when we come to the Committee stage. The noble Lord asked me the question with reference to what is in the Bill and I have answered his question: that is what is in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, showed this afternoon that when he had the responsibility, the industry was not so prosperous that it would have been able to finance itself. That is correct. The noble Viscount said that this Finance Corporation for industry could have found the amount required to carry through the long-term plan. I am not casting any aspersions on that; the fact was that it was not in the industry, and it had to apply to this excellent Organisation—which I agree has no connection with the Government and which does its work very well—in order to get additional capital.
  Then the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, used the word "dishonest." He used it twice. I wish he had not, because it is not fairly applicable. He said that the

  1141
  terms of compensation were dishonest in that they did not allow for depreciation of prices owing to the restriction of dividends, and that they did not allow for repayment of monies expended in improvements which have not yet borne fruit. I would say that we are not acquiring assets; we are acquiring shares; and the value of the money placed in the industry has its effect upon the value of the shares. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, went a little further. I see in Column 1000 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that he said that the Bill was going to produce chaos. He said:
  "The noble Viscount … will be creating chaos with this Bill if it ever becomes law."
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not dealing with Stock Exchange values. I pointed out that you are taking over ninety-six firms and leaving the remaining 2,000 firms not taken over.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Then I will apply my observations correctly. Your Lordships will observe that the noble Viscount was shrewd enough to steer clear of the matter I am now about to mention. If the result of this proposal were to be so desolating as we have been told, how do we account for these quotations on the Stock Exchange?—I had them got out for me and I have the whole details. Taking the figure for the value of iron and steel shares in December, 1938, as 100, it is a very interesting circumstance that when, on October 29, 1947, the Prime Minister made his statement that we were going to introduce this Bill, the figure was 142.6—that is, as compared with 100 in 1938. That was when this "disintegration of confidence" began, and this proposal which was to spread chaos became known. One year afterwards—I take the week ending October 25, 1948—the index figure for steel shares, instead of being 142.6, was 173.5. In other words it had gone up 30.9. That speaks for itself. I need say no more about it.
  There are one or two general criticisms to which I would refer. Lord Swinton referred to the operation of the guillotine. I have heard that for many years. I went into Parliament in 1910, and ever since, when the guillotine has operated from time to time I have heard the same speech—not perhaps quite so eloquent, but the same speech. There are two
  1142
  clauses in this Bill, Clauses 4 and 41, which are very important, which were not discussed in another place, and to which I hope your Lordships will do justice.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, really surpassed himself, if I may say so. He invented a most ingenious idea. We had to take over coal, quite frankly, he said, because it was in such a dreadful mess—I am not disputing that proposition. Then, somehow or other, the clock had turned round. The noble Marquess was a little vague abort why electricity, gas and transport had been taken over. Then he came round to this extraordinarily interesting conclusion that it was
  "by Greed out of Lust of Prices"—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: "Power," not "Prices."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would have been odd!
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg his pardon—"Lust of Power." The noble Marquess had previously said that it was the prosperous concerns which were singled out for nationalisation. I am not saying that that was entirely new, but it was exceedingly ingenious. But the reason, in fact, is given in the statement of principles of the Labour Party—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has referred and which I have already indicated—that in our view it is necessary to take this measure of control to safeguard the national interests.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: But you select first "those of the largest size."
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: As to size, I think transport was a fairly big one; and so was coal. I do not think noble Lords can complain of the smallness of our undertakings. It is not size that matters, as noble Lords know as well as I do. It is because in our view it is necessary for the economy of the State that these controls should be instituted.
  Finally, I must refer to one delicious invention of the noble Marquess that somehow or other this proposal is going to obliterate liberties. The noble Marquess said
  "And so, gradually but inexorably, free institutions and free enterprise are going to be utterly obliterated."
  I heard that, in almost the same words, in 1913. At that time there was brought

  1143
  into operation an Act called the National Health Insurance Act, which required people to stick stamps on cards. I remember the Daily Mail ran a campaign with letters about an inch high right across the front page, saying such things as: "We are going to be serfs, the slaves of an oligarchy; all our liberties are going to be taken away from us; we are going to have to lick stamps each week." I see the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, sitting there. He was one of a committee, with which I was associated, who had the delightful and splendid task of helping to bring that Bill into operation. But the big objection raised by that campaign was that it would obliterate our liberties.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Surely the noble Viscount does not draw a very accurate analogy between licking stamps once a week and the nationalisation of the transport system, the electricity system, the gas system, the coal industry and the iron and steel industry.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: All I am going to say is this. What will happen after this will be similar to what happened after the outcry against the licking of stamps—namely, nothing! The people went on licking stamps. There was no excitement. They calmed down very quickly. The Transport Act is coming into operation, almost by stealth. I am not sure whether every part has yet been brought into operation—I think there is some of the road transport which has not yet been dealt with. Really, my Lords, this kind of description of a proposal that has been before the country for some years, and which is in fact an exceedingly modest proposal, is itself mere "ballyhoo." We want this Bill because we are convinced that its purpose is right, and that in the matters of control and guidance for which it provides the representatives of the people should decide.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE BILL
  6.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, there is an old saying that,
  1144
  "after battle, peace is best; after war, tranquility."
  I am sure that we shall proceed in a most calm and happy atmosphere in our discussion of this non-controversial Bill. I am glad to say that it is as short as it is non-controversial—certainly it is short compared with the last Bill which I had the honour of laying before this House. It has not thirty-seven clauses and five Schedules as had the War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings) Bill of which I recently moved the Second Reading. This Bill has only one operative clause, and a clause containing the Title. As your Lordships are aware it has been extremely well received in another place, and although I will attempt to answer any points that arise, perhaps the House will permit me in these opening remarks to deal briefly with the subject. I shall not attempt to do justice to the work of the British Film Institute, but I would say that I am sure all noble Lords who have studied the Report of that Institute will agree that it has done very fine work indeed.
  The Bill is to give effect to the recommendation of the Radcliffe Committee that the Film Institute should receive a direct grant from the Treasury in addition to the grant made to it from the Cinematograph Fund. Since the grant from the Cinematograph Fund is made under the statutory authority of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, it is proper that the authority of this House should also be sought for the proposal to provide an additional grant from another source. It is in order to obtain that authority that we are introducing this Bill.
  The early history of the British Film Institute is described in the Report of the Radcliffe Committee (Command Paper 7361), which your Lordships will have read. I do not think I need go into it now. I propose to take as my starting point the Report of the Radcliffe Committee itself. The House will remember that the Committee were appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and reported about a year ago. They found that, although the Institute had attempted to develop many of the activities originally assigned to it, there were few in which it had made the headway that was hoped, partly because it had had so little money at its disposal. I happened to run

  1145
  into one of the Governors of the Institute last night, and he told me that that is absolutely true. They have all the time been approached with friendly requests for help which hitherto they have possessed insufficient funds to meet. The Committee recommended that in future all members of the Board of Governors of the Institute should be appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and that the Institute should concentrate on three main fields of activity which were described as follows: (1) To encourage the development of the art of the film, to promote its use as a record of contemporary life and manners, and to foster public appreciation and study of it from these points of view; (2) to explore and promote new or extended uses for the film; and (3) to encourage, support and serve other bodies working in the same field.
  As regards finance, with which this Bill is specifically concerned, the Committee gave an estimate of an annual expenditure of at least £100,000, together with capital expenditure of some £30,000, as an indication of the scale of expenditure which would be involved. At that time the annual grant from the Cinematograph Fund was fixed at £31,500, and even this figure involved drawing on the reserves of the Fund. They pointed out that the annual income of the Fund was only some £22,000, a figure which would probably tend to decrease, and that if the Institute was to continue to be dependent on the Fund for the bulk of its finances it would have to face a sharp contraction in its activities. And we agree that there should be an expansion rather than a contraction. The Committee recommended that the Institute should not in future look to the Cinematograph Fund for the bulk of its finances, though they saw no objection to a small proportion of its funds being drawn from this source. They concluded that the most suitable method of finance for the bulk of the Institute's funds would be a grant from the Exchequer.
  I do not think I need carry your Lordships through the various detailed happenings since that Report. I would mention that the new constitution of the Institute recommended by the Radcliffe Committee has been adopted, and the governing body, under its new chairman, Mr. Cecil King, has been appointed by
  1146
  the Lord President. The detailed budget of the Institute has been drawn up and discussed with the Treasury. This budget estimates the expenditure of the Institute in 1949–50 at £96,000, including £7,000 capital, towards which receipts amounting to about £28,000 are expected to be available from subscriptions, sales, rental of films and other sources. It is expected that £22,000 will be available from the income of the Cinematograph Fund, and provision for the balance of £46,000—that is the crucial figure before us—has been included as a grant-in-aid in the Civil Estimates for 1949–50, Class IV, Vote 10. It is for this grant-in-aid, this £46,000, and similar grants-in-aid in future years, that the authority of Parliament is being sought in the Bill to which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading.
  As I have said, the Government accept the view of the Radcliffe Committee—and I hope it will be accepted also by your Lordships' House—that the Treasury grant-in-aid is necessary; and they consider, therefore, that the provision made in the Bill is the one required for that purpose. I know that the noble Viscount who is to follow me is a great expert on films. No doubt, he will be able to contribute more to that side of the matter than I have felt it right to do. I am sure that the distinctions between the various film actors and film actresses are much better known to him than to me. I can distinguish only with difficulty between those who are best known—between Clark Gable and Betty Grable is about as far as I can get—but I feel sure that the noble Viscount will help us there. Nevertheless, whether we are expert filmgoers or not, I am sure the House agrees that the purposes of this Bill are good, that we all want to encourage the best kind of films. Therefore, without overmuch controversy, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  6.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, we on these Benches are accustomed to deal with Bills on their merits and therefore, just as we offered strong objection to the measure last before us, so we can fully agree with the measure before us

  1147
  now. We can agree very quickly, partly because it is unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill to follow the noble Lord into this question of Clark Gable and his fellow performers—and indeed I am really little more competent to do so than the noble Lord. The fact that this Bill has been certified as a Money Bill also makes our deliberations shorter than would otherwise have been the case; and thirdly, and probably the best reason of all, we can welcome this Bill because it is founded on the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee.
  I should like to pay a tribute to the work of this Committee in presenting what I think we all agree is a very workmanlike and satisfactory Report. There is no doubt that we all want the Film Institute to carry on, because it is a very important part of the film industry, both in its research activities and in regard to its library and everything else. If it is to go on and play its part in the wellbeing and interests of the film industry, then it must do so properly; otherwise it would be better not to do it at all. Therefore I think we should all be agreed that a grant is the right way to finance the work of the British Film Institute. One might perhaps express the view that if Entertainment Tax on the film industry were not so heavy it might be possible for the industry to finance the work of the Institute itself, in the same way that other large industries finance the work of their research institutions of a comparable kind. But I do not want to follow that path too far.
  Perhaps I may come back to one or two points that occurred to me on reading the Report and on reading the Bill, which is shorter. First, although I am sure the point has been taken care of, it was not mentioned in another place how a report on each year's working of the Institute is to be presented to Parliament. Is it going to be dealt with by discussion of the appropriate Estimates on a Supply Day in another place? Is there to be an annual report; or how is it to be done? I think public money ought to be accounted for in some such way, and perhaps more particularly in a case like this—for these reasons: first, because since a film library is part of the Film Institute, the cost will expand every year, as more and more material
  1148
  is collected in the library; secondly, because, as the Report itself has shown (in paragraph 8 I think), there is the risk of a certain amount of overlapping with other organisations in the film and educational world which do much the same work; and lastly, because the appeals of culture and education are always rather difficult to resist, and therefore one should be all the more careful to see that money is not wasted—indeed, in these days we cannot afford to waste it. That is one point.
  The other point is the question of Scotland. I have with me noble friends who are also interested in that point. There was a recommendation in paragraph 53 (h) of the Radcliffe Report, which stated
  "The Scottish Film Council should continue to carry out the work of the Institute in Scotland and should be given additional funds for this purpose."
  I understand from my noble friends that they are in full agreement with that recommendation. Nothing is said about it in the Bill, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us, either now or at a later date, what are the actual plans that the Government have in mind for dealing with the financing of that very important part of this organisation, the Scottish Film Council. I need say no more, except to repeat that we welcome this Bill. We support the Second Reading, and we shall not wish to trouble the Government over its further stages.
  6.47 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount who has expressed, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, support for this Bill. I am sorry to see that the Liberal Benches, which one would rather expect to be keenly interested in anything that promoted proposals in the nature of culture, are vacant. I will not comment further than that this evening except to say that the traditions of Gladstonian Liberalism seem to be dormant.
  I will address myself to the point about Scotland. I cannot help observing that, apart from the noble Viscount and myself, who have a kind of professional interest in the discussion, the only other noble Lords who have remained to consider this Bill are all from Scotland—I see that we are now joined by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, whose cultural in-

  1149
  terests were never more evident than this evening. I can assure the noble Viscount, and the noble Lords from Scotland, that the Government are accepting the proposals recommended with regard to Scotland, and I hope that message will be taken back and will give satisfaction.
  I would just refer to one other point—namely, the question of the Parliamentary scrutiny of accounts. The accounts will be published, together with the annual report of the Institute. These accounts will be audited by a non-Government auditor. I was not privy to recent discussions in the House, therefore I do not know whether or not that affords special pleasure to noble Lords opposite. At any rate the proposal is that the accounts will be audited by a non-Government auditor and not by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But the auditor will have access to the books and accounts, so honour should be satisfied all round. Perhaps, having said so much, I have done enough to recommend the Bill to your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  MOUNTBATTEN ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  Reported, with an Amendment.
  COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL
  Reported, without amendment.
  HOUSING PROGRESS IN NEW TOWNS
  HOUSING PROGRESS IN NEW TOWNS